23-7462-bk In Re: Ditech Holding Corp.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of October, two thousand twenty-four.

PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges, PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge. * _____________________________________

In Re: Ditech Holding Corporation,

Debtor.

****************************** 23-7462

James Lapinski, Patricia Lapinski,

* Judge Paul A. Engelmayer, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Appellants,

v.

Green Tree Servicing Corp., D. R. Horton, Inc., with Alexandria Pointe Homeowners Association, Federal National Mortgage Association, Consumer Claims Trustee,

Appellees,

Ditech Holding Corporation,

Debtor-Appellee. _____________________________________

FOR APPELLANTS: James Lapinski, pro se, Port Orange, FL.; Patricia Lapinski, pro se, Burke, VA.

FOR APPELLEE CONSUMER CLAIMS Richard Levin, Jenner & Block TRUSTEE: LLP, New York, NY.

FOR APPELLEE FEDERAL NATIONAL Brian P. Scibetta, McCalla MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION: Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, New York, NY.

FOR APPELLEE D. R. HORTON, INC., Mandeep Kaur, Wood Smith WITH ALEXANDRIA POINTE Henning & Berman, LLP, New HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION: York, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern

2 District of New York (Lorna G. Schofield, District Judge), affirming an order of the

Bankruptcy Court (James L. Garrity, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED as untimely.

Concluding that pro se bankruptcy claimants James and Patricia Lapinski

had filed their claims many months after the deadline to do so had passed, the

district court affirmed the bankruptcy court order that disallowed their claims and

closed their appeal. See generally In re Ditech Holding Corp., No. 22 Civ. 9127 (LGS),

(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2023). The district court then entered judgment

on September 11, 2023.

The Lapinskis’ pro se notice of appeal was filed 35 days later, beyond the 30

days allowed by the rules. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), 6(b)(1); see also Gibson v. City

Mun. of N.Y.,

, 201 n.3 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (“[P]apers are

generally deemed filed on the date they are received by a court . . . .”). Appellees

D. R. Horton, Inc., Federal National Mortgage Association, and Consumer Claims

Trustee now invoke this mandatory (but non-jurisdictional) deadline, urging us to

dismiss the appeal as untimely. See In re Indu Craft, Inc.,

(2d Cir.

2014). 3 We agree that the appeal must be dismissed as untimely. Contrary to the

Lapinskis’ arguments, they are not afforded additional time simply because they

are pro se. See Kotler v. Jubert,

(2d Cir. 2021) (“[S]olicitude for pro

se litigants does not require us to excuse failure to comply with understandable

procedural rules and mandatory deadlines.”). Accordingly, we DISMISS this

appeal. The Lapinskis’ motion to add the State of Florida as an appellee (Dkt. 19)

is denied as moot.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

4