Martin Palomino v. Richard Hoyt Associates
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Richard Hoyt & Associates (“Hoyt”) appeals from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing Hoyt’s late-filed appeal for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent that we have jurisdiction, it is under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review de novo. Wiersma v. Bank of the West (In re Wiersma), 483 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.
The BAP properly dismissed Hoyt’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Hoyt failed to file a timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8001(f)(1) (certification for direct appeal to court of appeals not effective without timely notice of appeal); see also In re Wiersma, 483 F.3d at 938 (“The failure to timely file a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional defect barring appellate review.”) (alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).
Because Hoyt’s notice of appeal to the BAP was untimely, we lack jurisdiction to review Hoyt’s contentions as to the merits of the bankruptcy court’s decision. See Greene v. United States (In re Souza), 795 F.2d 855, 857 (9th Cir.1986) (noting that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits where the appeal from the bankruptcy court was untimely).