Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 16, 2025

In Re: Irwin Jacobs

Judge
Rearden
Docket
1:24-cv-06739
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
BankruptcyCivil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In re Irwin Jacobs: Judge Rearden granted J-K Apparel’s motion to dismiss its late bankruptcy appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Who this affects

J-K Apparel Sales Co., Inc.’s appeal was dismissed after the court found that it lacked jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed late; Irwin Jacobs’s motion to dismiss was granted.

What happened

In In re Irwin Jacobs, J-K Apparel Sales Co., Inc. appealed a July 29, 2024 order by Bankruptcy Judge Michael E. Wiles. It filed its notice of appeal on September 5, 2024, more than 14 days after the order.

The court ordered J-K Apparel to explain why Irwin Jacobs’s motion to dismiss should not be treated as unopposed. J-K Apparel did not respond, so the court treated the motion as unopposed.

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden ruled that the appeal deadline was jurisdictional and that no exception applied. The court granted Jacobs’s motion to dismiss, terminated the pending motions, and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
In Re: Irwin Jacobs · No. 1:24-cv-06739
Judge
Rearden
Date
May 16, 2025

Background

J-K Apparel Sales Co., Inc. appealed an order issued by United States Bankruptcy Judge Michael E. Wiles on July 29, 2024. J-K Apparel filed its notice of appeal on September 5, 2024. Irwin Jacobs moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, meaning that the district court would have no legal power to decide it.

On January 17, 2025, the court ordered J-K Apparel to show why Jacobs’s motion should not be treated as unopposed. J-K Apparel did not show cause, so the court deemed the motion unopposed.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a) generally requires a bankruptcy appeal notice to be filed within 14 days after the challenged judgment, order, or decree is entered. The court found that J-K Apparel did not meet that deadline. It also found that neither Rule 8002(b), which can extend the deadline after certain timely bankruptcy-court motions, nor Rule 8002(c), which applies when the appellant is incarcerated, excused the late filing.

The court relied on Second Circuit precedent holding that Rule 8002(a)’s deadline is jurisdictional. Because J-K Apparel did not timely file its notice of appeal, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted Jacobs’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the case. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.