Mihilli v. Gaughan

Type

Opinion of the Court

Per curiam

Yes — no individual author

Filed

June 17, 2002

Case

Mihilli v. Gaughan

Case status

Decided

Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM ** Gjergj Mihilli appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s orders denying his motion to reopen the time to file a notice of appeal and motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of the motion to reopen and the motion for reconsideration, Weiner v. Perry, Settles Lawson, Inc. (In re Weiner), 161 F.3d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm. Mihilli contends he timely filed the motion to reopen within seven days of receiving actual notice of the entry of judgment. We disagree. Mihilli was required to file his motion to reopen within seven days of his receipt of notice of the entry of judgment. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6); Nguyen v. Southwest Leasing and Rental, Inc., 282 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2002). The receipt of notice of the entry of judgment by Mihilli’s counsel, even if not by his lead counsel, sufficiently informed Mihilli of the entry of judgment. See Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel, 799 F.2d 1409, 1412 (9th Cir.1986). Accordingly, the BAP did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen as untimely or by denying the motion for reconsideration. See Vahan v. Shalala, 30…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.