Marcelo Britto Gomez V.

MEMORANDUM

Carter Stephens appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying reconsideration of its order dismissing for failure to prosecute Stephens’s adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review de novo decisions of the BAP. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2009). We vacate and remand.

A motions panel of the BAP limited the scope of Stephens’s appeal to the bankruptcy court’s order denying Stephens’s motion for reconsideration. The panel applied the fourteen-day time limit to file a notice of appeal found in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a), and observed that Stephens’s motion for reconsideration was not filed within fourteen days and, therefore, did not toll the time limit to fíle a notice of appeal as to the underlying order of dismissal, see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(b). The BAP erred in limiting the scope of Stephens’s appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7058. Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 applies in adversary proceedings, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7058, and because the bankruptcy court did not enter a separate judgment…