U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 2025

Lastra v. Davis

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Decided May 21, 2025

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-4096 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2025 Page: 1

FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 21, 2025 _______________________________________

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court In re: KATRINA LASTRA,

Debtor. ----------------------- KATRINA LASTRA,

Appellant,

No. 24-4096 v. (BAP No. 24-016-UT)

(Bankruptcy Appellate Panel) ERIC DAVIS; UTAH HOUSING CORPORATION,

Appellees.

_______________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

_______________________________________ Before BACHARACH, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.

Appellate Case: 24-4096 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2025 Page: 2 This appeal is brought by Ms. Katrina Lastra, who challenges the

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s dismissal of her appeal. We affirm the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s dismissal.

On July 24, 2024, the bankruptcy court entered an order confirming Ms. Lastra’s Chapter 13 plan. Ms. Lastra had fourteen days to file an appeal (August 7, 2024). Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). But Ms. Lastra waited until August 26, 2024, to appeal. 1 This delay created a jurisdictional defect. In re Latture, 605 F.3d 830, 836 (10th Cir. 2010) (concluding that this deadline is jurisdictional). So the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel dismissed Ms. Lastra’s appeal.

In her reply brief, Ms. Lastra invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, which ordinarily applies in bankruptcy proceedings. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024. But procedural rules in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure don’t ordinarily modify deadlines to appeal. See In re Latture, 603 F.3d at 837 (concluding that Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9030 does not modify the jurisdictional deadlines in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002); see also 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (noting that appeals must be taken “in the time provided by Rule 8002 of the Bankruptcy Rules”). Because the bankruptcy rule incorporating Fed. R.

Appellate Case: 24-4096 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 05/21/2025 Page: 3 Civ. P. 60 is not jurisdictional, Rule 60 doesn’t affect the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s jurisdiction.

Ms. Lastra also argues that (1) the collection of debt in her case constitutes a denial of due process and a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (2) her creditors violated an appellate order, (3) her attorney committed malpractice by failing to object to a proof of claim, (4) the bankruptcy court failed to docket an objection, and (5) the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s Clerk of the Court demonstrated prejudice by issuing a same-day request to show cause. But these arguments don’t bear on whether Ms. Lastra failed to timely appeal to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

Because the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s dismissal was correct, we affirm. 2

Entered for the Court Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

* Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have decided the appeal based on the record and the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 1 Ms. Lastra did not move within bankruptcy court for an extension of the deadline for filing the appeal. 2 Ms. Lastra also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We grant this motion.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.