In Re: Stella Siomkos
- Ho
- 1:24-cv-08361
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Re: Stella Siomkos: Judge Ho denied reconsideration of a stay denial, found no jurisdiction to strike a bankruptcy-court filing, and said the appeal remains pending.
Stella Siomkos, who represented herself in the appeal, and the appellee in the bankruptcy appeal. The appeal remains pending before the district court.
What happened
In Re: Stella Siomkos concerns Stella Siomkos’s appeal from a bankruptcy-court order converting her Chapter 11 case to Chapter 7. She represented herself. The district court had previously denied her emergency request to pause the bankruptcy proceedings while the appeal was pending, and the appeal was fully briefed after the appellee filed an answering brief and Siomkos filed no reply.
Siomkos then filed a submission asking, among other things, that the court strike a supposed 173-page filing and “reinstate” the appeal. The court said it could not find that filing on the docket in this case and lacked authority to strike a filing on the bankruptcy court’s docket. It also clarified that the appeal had not been dismissed or closed and remained pending for decision.
Judge Ho denied any request to reconsider the earlier denial of a stay because Siomkos had not shown a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. The order did not decide the merits of the bankruptcy appeal.
The detailed version
- In Re: Stella Siomkos · No. 1:24-cv-08361
- Ho
- Apr. 14, 2025
Background
Stella Siomkos, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s October 24, 2024 order converting her Chapter 11 case to a Chapter 7 case. The district court had extended the deadline for her opening brief, which she filed on February 18, 2025. She then moved for an emergency stay—a request to pause the bankruptcy proceedings while the appeal was pending. After requesting a response, the court denied that motion. The appellee filed an answering brief, and no reply brief was filed by the April 3, 2025 deadline.
March 27 Filing
Siomkos later filed a submission described alternatively as a reply to a purported 173-page filing and a motion to void allegedly fraudulent filings and reinstate the appeal. The order addressed several requests in that submission.
First, the court stated that it was unaware of any 173-page filing on the docket in the district-court case. To the extent Siomkos sought to strike a filing on the bankruptcy court’s docket, the district court held that it lacked jurisdiction to do so. The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), which gives district courts authority to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees of bankruptcy judges.
Second, the court clarified that the appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s conversion order remained pending. The court stated that the appeal was fully briefed and would be decided in due course. The order did not expressly grant or deny a request to “reinstate” the appeal; instead, it explained that the appeal remained active.
Third, to the extent the filing sought reconsideration of the earlier order denying a stay, the court denied that request. Reconsideration requires a showing of an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice. The court found that Siomkos had not made the required showing.
Disposition and Classification
The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to strike a filing on the bankruptcy court’s docket, clarified that the bankruptcy appeal remained pending, and denied reconsideration of the prior stay denial. The order addressed jurisdiction and ancillary motions rather than the merits of the appeal, so it is classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.