Free Appendix - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—OO477-JJF Document 14-12 Filed 06/O1/2005 Page 1 of 3
° HLED
. CLERK U.S.U!STH1CT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DMTMCTOFBEUWMRK
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE _
ZUUMFEB 26 PHi2¤ I3
IN RE: : Chapter ll
GENESIS HEALTH VENTURES, INC., ; Bankruptcy Case No. OO—2692 JHW
et al., 1 (Jointly Administered)
Debtors. Q
IN RE: ; Chapter 11
MULTICARE AMC, INC., et ai., Q Bankruptcy Case No. OO—2494 JHW
` : (Jointly Administered}
Debtors. : A "
JAMES J. HAYES, Q °
Appellant, Q CONSOLIDATED
v. g Civil Action No. Dl~7lB JJF
GENESIS HEALTH VENTURES, INC., ;
et al., :
Appellees. S
y@g0RANDgg O§QER
By his Motion (D.I. 18), the Appellant asks the Court to
reopen Civil Action Number (“C,A. No.”} O1—718 JJF. For the
reasons discussed, the Court will deny the Motion.
I. Background
This is an appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s September 20,
2001, opinion on confirmation. By mistake, the Clerk of the
Court double docketed this case in C.A. Nos. D1~7lB JJF and 02-
016 JJF. On September 30, 2082, the Court granted Appellees’
unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal in C.A. No. O2~Ol6 JJF as
equitably moot. (D.I. l0 in C.A. No. 02—Gl6 JJF.)

Case 1 :04-cv—OO477-JJF Document 14-12 Filed 06/O1/2005 Page 2 of 3

On December 4, 2002, the Appellees submitted a letter to the
Court stating that C.A. No. 02~016 JJF was the same appeal as the
instant ease, and therefore, contended that the Court should
apply its Memorandum Order dismissing C.A. No. 02—Ol6 JJF to this
case. On March l2, 2003, the Court entered an Order dismissing
the instant case because the appeal was fully briefed and decided
under C.A. No. 02~0l6 JJF. (D.I. 17 in C.A. No. 0l~l78 JJ?.}
This is the Appellant’s Motion to Beopen_E§e“Qopptis%dismissel$x,aa,,p wg
and closure as {QA. No. Ol—7l0 JJF. U U
II, App¤11ant’s Contentions
The Appellant contends that the Court should reopen the _
instant case because it would violate his due process rights to
dismiss this case based upon the Court*s conclusions in a
“spurious" case. The Appellant also contends that applying the
judgment in C.A. No. 02~0l6 JJ? to this case would be
inappropriate because, at the time of entry of the Court’s
Memorandum Order in C.A. No. 02~0l6 JJF, he had not “made any
filings in this case[.]” {D.I. 19 at 6.)
III. Decision o ~»»·~¤
The Court granted the Appellees’ motion to dismiss in C.A.
No. 02-016 JJF on the grounds that the appeal was equitably moot.
The Appellant does not contend that he did not receive notice of
the Appellees’ motion to dismiss in C.A. No. 02—0l6 JJFW
However, he did not file an opposition brief and has offered no
2

Case 1 :04-cv—OO477-JJF Document 14-12 Filed 06/O1/2005 Page 3 of 3
explanation. Because the Appellant is the appellant in both C.A.
No. O2»0l6 JJF and C.A. No. 0l—7l8 JJF, the Court concludes that
the dismissal in C.A. No. 02-016 JJF controls the decision here.
The Appellant cannot litigate issues in this case that he should
have litigated in C.A. No. 02—Ol6 JJF merely because of a
clerical exten.
. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the the Appellant’s
is E ¤ : · ;;#1%_-.r;;; ·-.y*Q}Eg·_,|,,'§$g*g·§$$&»~w__.m_:.»,5,...`_,,._!,,,.,,..,,,_ 5:}.:Z .~..;i»E*€1r1·¤&»3¢.¥.'v;\•.-»-},.—.»~•\· »~.•-••L-A,.
§abxuaxg 26, 3004 ` - l a””w*M _{
DATE NITED STA ES DISTRICT C URT
Z __ , ·n2¤~* *¥T·"`F" `¤*_
3

Case 1:04-cv-00477-JJF

Document 14-12

Filed 06/01/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00477-JJF

Document 14-12

Filed 06/01/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00477-JJF

Document 14-12

Filed 06/01/2005

Page 3 of 3