Case 1:13-cv-00958-UNA Document 4 Filed 06/04/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 50
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE: Bishop, et al.
Romie David Bishop, et al.,
: C. A. No. 13-958
Bankruptcy Case No. 11-12338 BLS
AP No. 13-46
At Wilmington this 4th day of June, 2013.
WHEREAS, pursuant to paragraph 2(a) of the Procedures to Govern
Mediation of Appeals from the United States Bankruptcy Court for this District dated
September 11, 2012, Magistrate Judge Thynge reviewed the documents filed on this
court’s docket regarding an appeal of two orders from Bankruptcy Court entered April
19, and May 10, 2013 to determine the appropriateness of mediation in this matter. The
appeal was docketed on May 30, 2013. Attached was a designation of the record on
appeal by appellants which essentially requests the entire docket of the Bankruptcy
Court be included. Appellants also filed a motion based on excusable neglect due to a
death in the family addressing any late filing of the appeal.
WHEREAS, as a result of the above screening process, the orders
address issues that are not amenable to mediation and mediation at this stage would
not be a productive exercise, a worthwhile use of judicial resources nor warrant the
expense of the process. The order of April 19, 2013 is to strike a “Notice of Appeal”
relating to a memorandum opinion dated March 4, 2013 by the Superior Court of the
Case 1:13-cv-00958-UNA Document 4 Filed 06/04/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 51
State of Delaware in the matter of Citimortgage, Inc v. Romie D. Bishop and Shirley A.
Bishop, C.A. No. 09L-07-313-CLS, which was issued after a three day bench trial before
Judge Calvin L. Scott of the Superior Court and resolved certain foreclosure litigation in
favor of Citimortgage and against appellants.1 The Bankruptcy Court found that it
lacked authority to review the Superior Court decision, and further determined any
appellate review rests with the Supreme Court of Delaware. It thus found the notice of
appeal defective on is face and ordered it stricken. Regarding the order denying the
motion to amend findings entered May 10, 2013, it dealt with appellants motion to
amend the order of April 19, 2013 and similarly addressed the attempted appeal from
Superior Court to Bankruptcy Court. Both matters deal with purely legal issues and the
jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court.
THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, pursuant to paragraph 2(a)
Procedures to Govern Mediation of Appeals from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for this District and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this matter be withdrawn from the mandatory
referral for mediation and proceed through the appellate process of this Court. The
parties are advised they may file objections to this Recommendation pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a) and D. DEL. LR 72.1.
/s/ Mary Pat Thynge
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 The Bankruptcy Court had previously modified the automatic stay to permit the
Superioir Court litigation to proceed.