In Re: Elizabeth Thomas

Background

James Allen and Robert L. Thomas were the appellants in this appeal from bankruptcy-related proceedings. Their filing was titled an objection and motion to strike filings by J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. The filing argued that Chase was not named as a party in the underlying bankruptcy litigation, had not filed a motion to intervene, and therefore should not be treated as an appellee or allowed to present claims in that proceeding.

The filing also described an earlier Texas state-court lawsuit involving Allen, Robert L. Thomas, Elizabeth Thomas, and other entities. It asserted that the Texas court had entered an order granting Elizabeth Thomas summary judgment and dismissing the case with prejudice. The appellants further described disputes involving Primary Residential Mortgage Inc., Chase, an alleged deed of trust, foreclosure-related claims, and the effect of Elizabeth Thomas’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy-plan confirmation order.

Requested relief and arguments

The appellants asked the court to strike Chase’s filings as a non-party’s improper attempt to appeal or bring a new lawsuit within the existing matter. They argued that Chase’s filings did not comply with the intervention procedure in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, as incorporated into the bankruptcy rules, and that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over Chase’s asserted claims. They also argued that Primary Residential Mortgage Inc. lacked standing and had improperly sought to relitigate matters involving Elizabeth Thomas.

These were the appellants’ arguments in the filing. The district court’s order did not resolve whether Chase was a proper party, whether Primary Residential Mortgage Inc. had standing, whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction, or whether any claims were barred by the rule against relitigating matters already decided.

Ruling

Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the appellants’ motion for failure to follow the court’s individual rules. The order directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 12. The order did not state that the motion was granted or denied in part, and it did not add a separate dismissal or prejudice designation.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court denied the motion for noncompliance with its individual rules without reaching the underlying bankruptcy, foreclosure, intervention, jurisdiction, or claim-preclusion issues.