In Re: Aurora Commercial Corp.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-08282
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In re Aurora Commercial Corp., Judge Ramos denied joining Pierre’s appeal with an earlier closed appeal and relieved Pierre of responding.
Gerard M. Pierre, Aurora Commercial Corp., and Aurora Loan Services, LLC. The ruling denied the Appellees’ request to coordinate and transfer the appeal and relieved Pierre of a previously ordered response.
What happened
In re: Aurora Commercial Corp. concerns Gerard M. Pierre’s appeal from a bankruptcy-court order involving Aurora Commercial Corp. and Aurora Loan Services, LLC.
The Appellees asked to have the appeal treated as related to Pierre’s earlier appeal and transferred to the judge who handled that matter. The earlier appeal had already been closed.
Because both cases must still be pending to qualify as related under the applicable local rule, Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the request. He also said Pierre no longer had to file the response the court had previously ordered.
The detailed version
- In Re: Aurora Commercial Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-08282
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 15, 2020
Background
Gerard M. Pierre, representing himself, appealed a September 14, 2020 order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York involving Aurora Commercial Corp. and Aurora Loan Services, LLC. The appeal was filed on October 5, 2020.
On October 13, 2020, the Appellees asked under Rule 13 of the Local Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges to have this case marked as related to Pierre’s earlier appeal and transferred to the judge who had handled that earlier matter. The earlier appeal had been closed on July 24, 2020.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the Appellees’ request to join the cases. The court explained that Rule 13(a)(2)(B) requires both cases to be pending before they can be treated as related. Because the earlier appeal was closed, that requirement was not met.
The court also stated that, because the Appellees’ request was denied, Pierre was no longer required to file the response that the court had previously directed. The order addressed case coordination and a filing requirement; it did not decide the merits of Pierre’s bankruptcy appeal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.