In Re: Carmine P. Amelio

Background

Carmine P. Amelio, representing himself, appealed three orders entered by Chief Bankruptcy Judge Cecelia G. Morris in connection with his bankruptcy case and an adversary proceeding brought by Trustee Deborah J. Piazza. The district court had jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy orders under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8001(a).

Amelio filed for bankruptcy on September 1, 2017. The trustee later sought dismissal under 11 U.S.C. §§ 1307(c) and 109(e), arguing that Amelio had delayed the case, had not objected to proofs of claim, and had approximately four million dollars in debt, making him ineligible for Chapter 13 protection. The bankruptcy court converted the case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 on May 22, 2018, and denied Amelio’s two motions to vacate that conversion order.

The trustee then filed an adversary proceeding seeking, among other relief, injunctions restricting Amelio’s actions without prior written permission from the bankruptcy court.

The Three Bankruptcy-Court Orders

1. March 22, 2019 order: After a hearing, the bankruptcy court issued an order requiring Amelio to show why additional relief should not be entered and issued a temporary restraining order. The contemplated restrictions included barring Amelio and his agents or representatives from making further motions or filings in his case, filing bankruptcy cases in any bankruptcy court, or filing pleadings seeking relief against the trustee or her professionals without prior written permission.

2. June 3, 2019 order: The bankruptcy court issued a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order after finding that Amelio had filed a Chapter 13 case in New Jersey in violation of the earlier temporary restraining order. The bankruptcy court also found that his filings in several courts were frivolous, repetitive, and vexatious and interfered with administration of the bankruptcy case. It therefore required prior approval before he could file motions, pleadings, or take other actions in the bankruptcy court or other bankruptcy courts.

3. July 22, 2019 order: The bankruptcy court temporarily restricted Amelio and his agents or representatives from withdrawing or transferring funds from bank or financial accounts in which he had an interest. It also issued a turnover directive requiring Amelio to provide rents and documents concerning the bankruptcy estate. The directive followed the trustee’s requests for information about business transactions and property rents and her argument that Amelio had taken post-petition rents.

District Court’s Analysis

The district court reviewed legal conclusions independently, factual findings for clear error, and discretionary decisions for abuse of discretion. A bankruptcy court abuses its discretion when it relies on an erroneous view of the law, clearly erroneous factual findings, or a clear error of judgment.

For the March order, the district court held that bankruptcy courts may restrict litigants who abuse the judicial process through frivolous, vexatious, repetitive, or harassing litigation. The court found that Amelio had demonstrated a history of vexatious, harassing, and duplicative lawsuits and that his litigation appeared intended to impede the trustee’s asset sales. The court emphasized that the bankruptcy court had not barred him from filing all lawsuits; it required prior permission so filings could be screened for duplication or vexatiousness. The district court found no support for Amelio’s claims that Chief Judge Morris acted with bias or prejudice.

Regarding the June order, the district court explained that temporary restraining orders generally are not immediately appealable because they are temporary and do not constitute final judgments. An exception may apply when the order could cause serious, possibly irreparable harm and can be effectively challenged only through an immediate appeal. The court found that Amelio had not shown that this exception applied and had not presented specific arguments supporting his appeal. It therefore found no abuse of discretion.

The district court reached the same conclusion regarding the temporary restraining order in the July order. It also upheld the turnover directive, finding it appropriate and necessary to protect the bankruptcy estate while the adversary proceeding continued. The record showed that Amelio had not provided evidence that he complied with multiple requests for documents and information. The court found that his self-represented status did not excuse compliance with court directives and procedural obligations.

Disposition

The district court affirmed Chief Judge Morris’s March, June, and July orders. The clerk was directed to close the motions in 19 Civ. 5944 and 19 Civ. 7091.