In re: LAKE MATHEWS MINERAL PROPERTIES, LTD. v. LAKE MATHEWS MINERAL PROPERTIES, LTD.; ELISSA D. MILLER, Trustee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: LAKE MATHEWS MINERAL
PROPERTIES, LTD.,
Debtor,
______________________________
PAUL MERRITT,
Appellant,
v.
LAKE MATHEWS MINERAL
PROPERTIES, LTD.; ELISSA D. MILLER,
Trustee,
Appellees.
No. 18-55646
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-07861-CJC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-55646
Paul Merritt appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing as
untimely his appeal from various orders in Lake Mathews Mineral Properties,
LTD.’s bankruptcy court proceedings. We review de novo our own jurisdiction.
Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot
Springs), 339 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
We lack jurisdiction because Merritt did not file a timely notice of appeal
from any bankruptcy court order that he sought to appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.
8002(a) (14-day time limit to file notice of appeal); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9022(a)
(“Lack of notice of the entry does not affect the time to appeal or relieve or
authorize the court to relieve a party for failure to appeal within the time allowed,
except as permitted in Rule 8002.”); Anderson v. Mouradick (In re: Mouradick),
13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (Rule 8002(a)’s time limits are jurisdictional and
the untimely filing of a notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction
to review the bankruptcy court’s order).
Merritt’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --