The Splits from page 28
jurisdiction over bankruptcy appeals , 28 U . S . C . § 158 , expressly requires that the notice of appeal be filed under the time limit provided in Rule 8002 , we conclude that the time limit is jurisdictional .” Id . at 1003 . Finally , the Seventh Circuit followed the same reasoning in Sobczak-Slomczewski involving yet another non-dischargeability action , affirming the district court ’ s dismissal of an untimely appeal . Referring to the precedents in the Tenth , Third , and Fifth Circuit , the Seventh Circuit found “ these courts ’ analysis persuasive ” and agreed that the time limit in Rule 8002 was jurisdictional . Sobczak-Slomczewski , 826 F . 3d at 432 .
It appeared that the courts agreed on the jurisdictional nature of the time limit set in Rule 8002 until the decision by the Sixth Circuit in 2020 in Tennial . This case involved an untimely appeal of an order terminating the automatic stay . While affirming the dismissal of the appeal by the district court on independent grounds , the Sixth Circuit held the district court erred in dismissing the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction . The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that it had previously held this deadline to be jurisdictional , but reexamined the question in light of Arbaugh and other recent Supreme Court cases . Disagreeing with other Circuits , the Sixth Circuit held :
Congress did not state that this 14-day deadline establishes a jurisdictional prerequisite . In the relevant statute , Congress merely referred to any appeal deadlines created by the Bankruptcy Rules . 28 U . S . C . § 158 ( c )( 2 ). Nothing about that reference indicates that Congress meant to attach subject matter jurisdiction consequences to deadlines established by the Bankruptcy Rules .
Much less did it do so ‘ clearly ’ with that modest reference . Tennial , 978 F . 3d at 1025 . The Sixth Circuit then cited to other Supreme Court cases interpreting deadlines in court adopted rules and concluded :
How did the Court resolve these cases ? Based on this straightforward principle : Rule-based deadlines are jurisdictional when they implement an appeal deadline created by Congress . Otherwise , they are not . Thus , a bankruptcy appellate deadline is not jurisdictional when Congress did not create it . Id . at 1026 . Citing to the Supreme Court case Homer , the Sixth Circuit explained : “ If a time prescription governing the transfer of adjudicatory authority to an Article III court appears in a statute , the limitation is jurisdictional ; otherwise , the time specification fits within the claim-processing category .” Id . Based on this reasoning , since Rule 8002 ( a )( 1 ) did not implement an appeal deadline set by Congress , the Court determined it was not jurisdictional . The Court warned : “ If deadlines established by the rules process alone created jurisdictional limits , this would mean the rules committee could change the scope of federal court subject matter jurisdiction on its own ,” which the court found untenable . Id . Analyzing the Supreme Court ’ s four decisions interpreting the jurisdictional effect of deadlines in rules , the court noted that there is a difference between a statutory incorporation of a rule ’ s deadline and the statutory creation of a deadline because “[ w ] hen the rule deadline grows out of one truly ‘ specified ’ by Congress , it is jurisdictional . When the rule deadline grows out of the rules process alone , it is not .” Id .
continued on page 30
29