TJG/ Summitt Development Corp. v. Rigby

MEMORANDUM

TJG/Summitt Development Corporation (“Summitt”) appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) orders dismissing its appeals because of Summitt’s corporate suspension and denying its motion for reconsideration after the corporate powers were revived.

Under the circumstances, the BAP correctly dismissed Summitt’s appeals. Traub Co. v. Coffee Break Serv., Inc., 66 Cal.2d 368 , 57 Cal.Rptr. 846 , 425 P.2d 790, 792 (1967) (Under California law, “a suspended corporation not shown to have been reinstated lacks the right or capacity to defend an action or to appeal from an adverse decision.”). We need not address whether the BAP abused its discretion in denying Summitt’s motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b); the ultimate result would be the same because Summitt’s claims cannot be sustained.

We reject Summitt’s challenge to the bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the estate of FRB, Inc., (“FRB”) because FRB filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (e).

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding that equitable principles precluded Summitt,…