United States District Court, D. Delaware
In re Coppedge, et al. Debtors.
Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, as servicing agent for Banc of America Funding Corporation 2007-3, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Appellee. James Coppedge, Appellant, In re Coppedge, et al. Debtors. James Coppedge, Appellant,
Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, as servicing agent for Banc of America Funding Corporation 2007-3, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Appellee. BAP Nos. 19-01, 19-02
Pat Thynge, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge.
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, a teleconference
was held on February 1, 2019 for an initial review and
discussion with Appellant and counsel for Appellee to
determine the appropriateness of mediation in this matter;
as a result of the above screening process, the issues
involved in this case 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.
to the teleconference, Appellant provided a number of
documents which the Court was unable to review, and so
informed Appellant. During the teleconference the Court
explained its purpose which was to determine whether the
matter should be removed from mandatory mediation and proceed
through the appeals process of this court. Counsel for
appellee advised that mediation in this matter would not be
worthwhile. Appellant verbally presented an extensive
explanation for the bases of his appeal. I advised that based
on my understanding of the issues, that I intended to
recommend removal of the matter from mandatory mediation and
for a briefing schedule to be entered. Appellant requested
that the Court review the documents that he forwarded before
entering my Recommendation. The Court has since done so.
Appellant is appealing two Orders by Judge Shannon entered
December 20, 2018: the Order Striking Notice of Default and
Dishonor of Appellee and the Order Denying Debtor's
Motion for Reconsideration. Both Orders were denied because
they reflected arguments and theories that had been
previously considered and rejected by the Bankruptcy Court,
that no grounds were offered by the Appellant to support the
extraordinary relief of reconsideration of an order and the
motions were part of a multiplicity of repetitive, vexatious
and unduly burdensome filings. The Bankruptcy Court further
granted Appellee its allowance of fees in the amount of
$500.00. Neither Order is conducive to mediation since the
appeals requested that these orders be overturned, in part
based on the argument that the debt was discharged.
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
FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the following briefing schedule be
entered to address the issues raised on appeal for the
Court's review and consideration.
Appellant's Opening Brief
March 11, 2019
Appellees Answering Brief
April 15, 2019
Appellant's Reply Brief
May 1, 2019
shall be consistent with the Local Rules of Civil Practice
and Procedure of this Court and subject to the following page
limitations pursuant to D. Del. LR 7.1.3: Opening brief
limited to twenty (20) pages double spaced; answering brief
limited to twenty (20) pages double spaced; and Reply brief
limited to ten (10) pages double spaced.
ORDERED that the parties are advised of their right to 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.
If any objections are filed, they shall be due within ten
(10) days of the issuance of this
Recommendation and shall be limited to five (5) pages double
spaced. Any response shall be due within ten (10) days after
service of the objections and shall be limited to five (5)
pages double space. No additional filings in support of or in
opposition to the objections shall be filed without prior
authorization by the Court.
FURTHER ORDERED that no modifications to the page limitations
or the due dates for submissions contained in this
Recommendation shall ...