Royal Street Bistro v. Arrowhead Capital: Fifth Circuit Confirms Rule 8003 Attachment Defects Are Nonjurisdictional and Rarely Justify Dismissal

Royal Street Bistro v. Arrowhead Capital: Fifth Circuit Confirms Rule 8003 Attachment Defects Are Nonjurisdictional and Rarely Justify Dismissal

I. Introduction

In Royal Street Bistro, L.L.C. v. Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd., No. 24‑30732 (5th Cir. Nov. 17, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit confronted a recurring and practically important question in bankruptcy appellate practice: when does a defect in the notice of appeal deprive the district court of jurisdiction, and when is it merely a procedural misstep subject to discretionary sanctions?

The case arose from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy involving Royal Alice Properties, L.L.C. (“Debtor”) and its affiliates, including Royal Street Bistro, L.L.C. (“RSB”) and Picture Pro, L.L.C. Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. (“Arrowhead”), a judgment creditor of Debtor’s affiliates, ultimately acquired the estate’s rent claims against RSB and Picture Pro through a settlement with the Chapter 11 trustee. A bankruptcy court judgment entered in Arrowhead’s favor led RSB and Picture Pro to appeal to the district court. Their notice of appeal, however, failed to attach a copy of the judgment, as required by Bankruptcy Rule 8003(a)(3)(B).

The bankruptcy clerk issued a deficiency notice, giving a short window to cure. The appellants filed a corrected notice ten days after the clerk’s deadline and seven days after the jurisdictional 14‑day appeal period had run. The district court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and, in the alternative, as a discretionary sanction for failing to comply with the bankruptcy rules and the clerk’s notice.

Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, writing for a unanimous panel (Judges Wiener, Douglas, and Ramirez), reversed. The Fifth Circuit held: (1) failure to attach the judgment to a timely notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect; and (2) the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal as a sanction for this nonjurisdictional violation. The court remanded for the district court to consider the merits of RSB’s appeal, including its challenge to the bankruptcy court’s subject‑matter jurisdiction.

The opinion clarifies and reinforces the distinction between jurisdictional requirements grounded in statute (especially the timeliness requirement for bankruptcy appeals in Bankruptcy Rule 8002) and nonjurisdictional, claim‑processing rules such as the content requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 8003. It also underscores the high bar for dismissing bankruptcy appeals as a sanction for procedural missteps.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

A. The Bankruptcy Case and the Underlying Dispute

In August 2019, Royal Alice Properties, L.L.C. filed for Chapter 11 protection. A Chapter 11 trustee was appointed to administer the estate. The debtor’s only assets consisted of three properties, which were occupied by:

  • the debtor’s sole member, and
  • two affiliated entities, Picture Pro, L.L.C. and Royal Street Bistro, L.L.C. (RSB).

Arrowhead obtained judgments against the debtor’s affiliates (though not directly against the debtor itself). Seeking to recover on those judgments, Arrowhead filed an adversary proceeding against the debtor, arguing that the debtor was liable for its affiliates’ unpaid obligations.

While that adversary proceeding was pending, the Chapter 11 trustee filed a separate adversary proceeding against Picture Pro to recover unpaid rent and other relief related to Picture Pro’s occupancy of the debtor’s properties. Ultimately, Arrowhead and the trustee reached a settlement:

  • The trustee assigned to Arrowhead the debtor’s claims against Picture Pro and RSB for unpaid rent and related relief.
  • In exchange, Arrowhead agreed to release its claims in its pending adversary proceeding against the debtor.

The bankruptcy court approved the settlement over Picture Pro’s objection. The approval order contained two key terms:

  1. The bankruptcy court would retain jurisdiction over any claims assigned to Arrowhead under the settlement agreement; and
  2. Arrowhead could enforce those claims by intervening in the existing adversary proceeding.

Pursuant to that order, Arrowhead filed a complaint in intervention against Picture Pro and RSB on October 24, 2022.

B. The Bankruptcy Court’s Final Judgment

On August 29, 2024, the bankruptcy court entered a final judgment against Picture Pro and RSB, jointly and severally, for $233,548.51. That judgment disposed of Arrowhead’s intervenor claims for unpaid rent and related relief.

C. The First Notice of Appeal and the Clerk’s Deficiency Notice

On September 5, 2024—well within the 14‑day deadline imposed by Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1)—Picture Pro and RSB filed a notice of appeal to the district court. The notice of appeal:

  • was filed in the correct adversary proceeding, and
  • clearly designated the bankruptcy court’s judgment as the subject of the appeal.

However, the notice did not include a copy of the appealed‑from judgment, contrary to Bankruptcy Rule 8003(a)(3)(B), which requires that the notice of appeal “be accompanied by the judgment—or the appealable order or decree—from which the appeal is taken.”

On September 6, the clerk of the bankruptcy court issued a deficiency notice. The notice informed the appellants that:

  • the appeal was deficient because the judgment was not attached; and
  • they were required to submit a corrected notice by September 9 (two business days).

The notice warned that the appeal could be stricken if not corrected, but it did not explicitly warn that the district court might dismiss the appeal.

D. The Corrected Notice and the District Court’s Dismissal

On September 19, 2024—ten days after the clerk’s cure deadline and 21 days after entry of the bankruptcy judgment—Picture Pro and RSB filed a corrected notice of appeal that attached the missing judgment.

Arrowhead moved to dismiss the appeal in the district court, arguing that:

  1. the appeal was jurisdictionally defective because Picture Pro and RSB failed to comply with Bankruptcy Rules 8002 and 8003; and
  2. alternatively, the district court should exercise its discretion to dismiss as a sanction for the procedural violations.

The district court granted Arrowhead’s motion and dismissed the appeal, reasoning:

  • that the failure to timely cure the Rule 8003 deficiency deprived it of jurisdiction, and
  • that even if jurisdiction existed, dismissal was warranted “as a matter of discretion” in light of the appellants’ noncompliance with the rules and the deficiency notice.

RSB (alone, after Picture Pro was dismissed from the appeal due to sanctions in another circuit) timely appealed the district court’s dismissal to the Fifth Circuit.

III. Summary of the Fifth Circuit’s Opinion

The Fifth Circuit addressed three issues:

  1. Whether failure to attach the bankruptcy court’s judgment to the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional defect that mandates dismissal;
  2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the Rule 8003 violation and the late cure; and
  3. Whether the bankruptcy court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding filed by the trustee (an issue raised by RSB, but not reached by the district court).

The court held:

  • Nonjurisdictional defect. Failure to attach the appealed‑from judgment is NOT a jurisdictional defect. It is a violation of Bankruptcy Rule 8003(a)(3)(B), which is not grounded in a jurisdiction‑defining statute. Thus, a timely filed notice of appeal that omits the attachment does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction. The controlling jurisdictional requirement is the 14‑day deadline in Rule 8002(a), which is jurisdictional by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) and Fifth Circuit precedent (In re Berman‑Smith).
  • Abuse of discretion. The district court abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal as a sanction under Rule 8003(a)(2). Dismissal is an “extremely severe sanction,” reserved for the most egregious cases. Here:
    • the notice of appeal was timely and clearly identified the judgment;
    • the failure to attach the judgment caused no articulated prejudice to Arrowhead beyond delayed enforcement of the judgment (which is insufficient on its own);
    • there was no evidence of “obstinately dilatory conduct”; and
    • the district court did not consider any lesser sanctions before resorting to dismissal.
  • Subject‑matter jurisdiction not reached. Because the district court had not addressed RSB’s challenge to the bankruptcy court’s subject‑matter jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit declined to reach that issue in the first instance, reiterating that it is a “court of review, not of first view.” The court remanded for the district court to consider the merits, including this jurisdictional challenge.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

IV. Detailed Legal Analysis

A. Jurisdictional Framework: Statute Versus Procedural Rules

The core of the decision lies in drawing a sharp line between:

  • requirements that are truly jurisdictional (such that failure to comply deprives the court of power to hear the case), and
  • those that are merely claim‑processing or procedural rules, which regulate the orderly presentation of appeals but do not limit subject‑matter jurisdiction.

The relevant statutory provision is 28 U.S.C. § 158, which defines the appellate jurisdiction of district courts (and bankruptcy appellate panels, where authorized) over bankruptcy court decisions. Section 158(c)(2) states that bankruptcy appeals:

“shall be taken in the same manner as appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the courts of appeals from the district courts and in the time provided by Rule 8002 of the Bankruptcy Rules.”

The reference to “in the time provided by Rule 8002” is critical. As the Fifth Circuit reiterated, where Congress explicitly incorporates a time limit into a jurisdiction‑defining statute, that time limit is jurisdictional. Citing Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 212–13 (2007), the court noted that Congress controls not only which cases federal courts can hear, but also “when, and under what conditions” they may do so.

This framework led the court, in In re Berman‑Smith, 737 F.3d 997, 1003 (5th Cir. 2013), to hold that the 14‑day time limit in Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1) is jurisdictional:

“[B]ecause the statute defining jurisdiction over bankruptcy appeals, 28 U.S.C. § 158, expressly requires that the notice of appeal be filed under the time limit provided in Rule 8002, . . . the time limit is jurisdictional.”

By contrast, Bankruptcy Rule 8003(a)(3)(B) — which requires that the notice of appeal be “accompanied by” the judgment, order, or decree being appealed — is purely a rule‑based requirement. It is not mentioned in § 158 or any other jurisdiction‑defining statute.

Drawing on this distinction, and relying heavily on its recent decision in In re Serta Simmons Bedding, L.L.C., 125 F.4th 555 (5th Cir. 2024), the court reaffirmed:

“Rule 8003(a)(3)(B) does not follow from a clear federal statute. . . . Since a failure to attach the appealed‑from judgment is not a failure to timely file the notice of appeal, such a failure does not mandate dismissal.”

Thus, the timely filing of a notice of appeal satisfies the jurisdictional prerequisite under § 158 and Rule 8002. Any additional defects in form or attachments under Rule 8003 are nonjurisdictional.

B. Rule 8003 Attachment Defects as Nonjurisdictional

The core holding of Royal Street Bistro is that a notice of appeal that:

  • is filed within the 14‑day period required by Bankruptcy Rule 8002, and
  • clearly designates the judgment, order, or decree being appealed,

is jurisdictionally sufficient—even if it fails to attach a copy of the judgment, in violation of Rule 8003(a)(3)(B).

The Fifth Circuit emphasized that the defect here was not a failure to file a notice of appeal, but rather a failure to properly accompany the notice with a document:

“Here, by contrast, Debtor’s affiliates filed their notice of appeal in the underlying adversary proceeding, and the notice clearly designated the bankruptcy court’s judgment as the subject of the appeal. Even though a copy of the judgment was not attached at the time the notice of appeal was filed, ‘a failure to attach the judgment is not a fatal defect under Rule 8003.’”

This aligns directly with In re Serta Simmons, where the court had already held that Rule 8003(a)(3)(B) is not jurisdictional because it does not rest on a “clear statement” from Congress in a jurisdiction‑defining statute. Serta Simmons held that:

  • a missing attachment is a nonjurisdictional defect; and
  • courts must instead evaluate such defects under the discretionary framework of Rule 8003(a)(2), which authorizes appropriate sanctions (including dismissal in extreme cases).

Accordingly, because RSB and Picture Pro:

  • filed their notice of appeal within the 14‑day jurisdictional deadline of Rule 8002(a)(1), and
  • clearly identified the judgment being appealed,

the district court had appellate jurisdiction. The defect in failing to attach the judgment went to procedure, not jurisdiction.

C. Distinguishing In re Cleveland Imaging & Surgical Hospital

Arrowhead relied heavily on In re Cleveland Imaging & Surgical Hospital, L.L.C., 26 F.4th 285 (5th Cir. 2022), arguing that the failure to attach the order on appeal to the notice of appeal “defeats jurisdiction.” The Fifth Circuit carefully explained why that reliance was misplaced.

In Cleveland Imaging, the appellants sought to challenge:

  1. an order dismissing their adversary proceeding, and
  2. a subsequent sanctions order.

They filed a notice of appeal to the district court that:

  • attached only the sanctions order, and
  • designated only the sanctions order as the subject of the appeal.

No notice of appeal was ever filed from the dismissal order in the adversary proceeding. The Fifth Circuit therefore held it lacked jurisdiction to review the dismissal order because:

“The appellants had not filed a notice of appeal, timely or otherwise, in the adversary proceeding that properly embraced the dismissal order, as required under the bankruptcy rules.”

That situation differs fundamentally from Royal Street Bistro:

  • In Cleveland Imaging, there was no notice of appeal at all as to the order dismissing the adversary proceeding; the appellants never “embraced” that order in any notice, and the main case and the adversary proceeding were treated as distinct for appellate purposes (relying on In re Dorsey).
  • In Royal Street Bistro, by contrast, a notice of appeal was filed in the correct adversary proceeding and clearly identified the judgment being appealed. The only defect was the failure to attach a copy of that judgment, which Serta Simmons and Rule 8003 treat as nonjurisdictional.

Accordingly, Cleveland Imaging stands for the unremarkable proposition that a party cannot obtain review of an order it has never appealed at all. It does not transform Rule 8003’s attachment requirement into a jurisdictional prerequisite.

D. Abuse of Discretion in Dismissing the Appeal

1. The Sanctions Framework Under Rule 8003(a)(2) and In re CPDC Inc.

Even though Rule 8003 defects are nonjurisdictional, they may still justify sanctions. Bankruptcy Rule 8003(a)(2) provides:

“An appellant’s failure to take any step other than timely filing a notice of appeal does not affect the appeal’s validity, but is ground only for the district court . . . to act as it considers appropriate, including dismissing the appeal.”

This language makes two fundamental points:

  1. Only untimely filing of the notice of appeal (Rule 8002) affects the “validity” of the appeal, i.e., the court’s jurisdiction.
  2. Other defects may justify action “as [the district court] considers appropriate,” which may include—but does not require—dismissal.

In In re CPDC Inc., 221 F.3d 693 (5th Cir. 2000), the Fifth Circuit articulated the principles governing the use of dismissal as a sanction for nonjurisdictional bankruptcy rule violations:

  • Dismissal is generally unwarranted for harmless violations.
  • “Parties should not invariably suffer for the errors of counsel.”
  • The central goal of enforcing bankruptcy rules is to promote the prompt and efficient resolution of bankruptcy disputes.
  • Courts should consider, among other things:
    • the appropriateness of alternative, lesser sanctions;
    • the prejudicial effect of any delay on the appellee; and
    • whether the appellant has engaged in “obstinately dilatory conduct.”

These principles were later reaffirmed in In re Payne, 2023 WL 7314356 (5th Cir. 2023), and again in Serta Simmons, where the Fifth Circuit emphasized that courts must:

“exercise discretion and consider what sanctions are appropriate” for nonjurisdictional filing defects.

2. Failure to Consider Lesser Sanctions

The Fifth Circuit’s first and central criticism of the district court was that it went straight to the “nuclear option” of dismissal without considering any lesser sanctions:

“Here, the district court did not consider any sanction short of dismissal.”

This is directly contrary to CPDC and Serta Simmons, which instruct that:

  • dismissal is an “extremely severe sanction” (as later underscored by McKenzie and Braniff Airways), and
  • courts should first evaluate whether alternative measures (e.g., warnings, monetary sanctions against counsel, cost‑shifting, or orders requiring prompt corrective action) would adequately protect the interests of the parties and the court.

The opinion notes that the clerk’s deficiency notice warned only that the notice of appeal might be stricken if uncured—not that the entire appeal would be dismissed. Against that backdrop, the district court’s choice to dismiss the appeal outright, with no express consideration of lesser sanctions, was a misapplication of its discretionary authority under Rule 8003(a)(2).

3. Lack of Prejudice to Arrowhead

The court also underscored that Arrowhead did not identify any concrete prejudice arising from the 10‑day delay in filing the corrected notice. The only “harm” asserted was the delay in enforcing the bankruptcy court’s judgment. The Fifth Circuit has already rejected that as sufficient prejudice:

“[Arrowhead] does not assert that it suffered any injury from the delayed filing other than the enforcement of the bankruptcy court’s judgment. This court has rejected a claim of prejudice based solely on the delayed interest in enforcing a judgment.” (citing In re CPDC Inc., 221 F.3d at 701 n.10).

The absence of concrete prejudice strongly counseled against dismissal, particularly where:

  • the underlying notice of appeal was timely,
  • the identity of the appealed judgment was clear, and
  • the delay was measured in days rather than months or years.

4. No Evidence of “Obstinately Dilatory Conduct”

Another CPDC factor is whether the appellant engaged in a pattern of obstructive or “obstinately dilatory” conduct. The Fifth Circuit found no such conduct here:

“Finally, there is nothing in the district court’s order or the record indicating that RSB and Picture Pro engaged in delaying tactics or ‘obstinately dilatory conduct.’”

The appellants’ behavior—while negligent in missing the deficiency‑cure deadline—was not part of a sustained effort to delay proceedings. Absent evidence of such tactics, dismissal was disproportionate.

5. The Severity of Dismissal as a Sanction

The Fifth Circuit reiterated the longstanding principle that dismissal of a bankruptcy appeal is an “extremely severe sanction,” suitable only for highly egregious conduct:

“‘Dismissal of a bankruptcy appeal is an extremely severe sanction’ that should ‘be reserved for the most egregious of situations.’” (quoting In re McKenzie, 1998 WL 414308, *3 (5th Cir. 1998), which in turn cited In re Braniff Airways, 774 F.2d 1303, 1304–05 (5th Cir. 1985)).

Against this backdrop, the court concluded:

“Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the failure to timely attach a copy of the bankruptcy court’s judgment to the notice of appeal, which clearly identified the judgment being appealed, was so egregious as to merit the district court’s dismissal of the appeal.”

This statement encapsulates the core sanction holding: procedural missteps must be evaluated in context—looking to prejudice, culpability, and alternatives—before resorting to dismissal.

E. Subject‑Matter Jurisdiction: A Court of Review, Not First View

RSB also argued that the bankruptcy court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction over the trustee’s adversary proceeding (and, by extension, over the claims later prosecuted by Arrowhead via intervention). The Fifth Circuit declined to reach this question, explaining that:

  • the district court had dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds and had not addressed any merits issues, including subject‑matter jurisdiction; and
  • appellate courts generally avoid deciding issues not considered by the court below.

Quoting Montano v. Texas, 867 F.3d 540, 546 (5th Cir. 2017), the court reminded:

“[A] court of appeals sits as a court of review, not of first view.”

And citing Robertson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 814 F.3d 236, 242 (5th Cir. 2015), it confirmed its usual practice of declining to reach issues “not addressed by the district court in the first instance.”

Thus, the Fifth Circuit remanded so that the district court could:

  • consider the subject‑matter jurisdiction challenge (and other merits issues) in the first instance, and
  • create a record and reasoning that could, if necessary, later be reviewed on appeal.

V. Precedents Cited and Their Influence on the Decision

The opinion weaves together a network of prior decisions. Understanding them illuminates how the court reached its result.

1. In re Berman‑Smith, 737 F.3d 997 (5th Cir. 2013)

Berman‑Smith is the key authority on the jurisdictional nature of Rule 8002’s time limit. Relying on § 158(c)(2)’s incorporation of Rule 8002, the court held that the time limit for bankruptcy appeals is jurisdictional. If a notice of appeal is filed outside the 14‑day window, the district court lacks power to hear the appeal.

In Royal Street Bistro, Berman‑Smith provides the foundation for distinguishing timeliness (jurisdictional) from other filing defects (nonjurisdictional). Once the court confirmed that the first notice of appeal was timely, jurisdiction was secure.

2. In re Serta Simmons Bedding, L.L.C., 125 F.4th 555 (5th Cir. 2024)

Serta Simmons directly addressed the nature of Rule 8003(a)(3)(B)’s attachment requirement and held that it is nonjurisdictional because it does not rest on any “clear statement” by Congress in a jurisdiction‑defining statute. The decision further held:

  • failure to attach the appealed‑from judgment is not a “fatal” defect requiring dismissal; and
  • district courts must evaluate such defects under Rule 8003(a)(2), considering appropriate sanctions and the circumstances of the case.

Royal Street Bistro applies and reinforces Serta Simmons, confirming that the same logic governs bankruptcy appeals to the district court where the appellant fails to attach the judgment but files a timely notice.

3. In re CPDC Inc., 221 F.3d 693 (5th Cir. 2000)

CPDC remains the leading Fifth Circuit decision on the discretionary use of dismissal as a sanction for nonjurisdictional violations of the bankruptcy rules. It established:

  • Timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, but other procedural steps fall under Rule 8003(a)(2)’s discretionary regime.
  • Dismissal is a drastic measure, generally unwarranted for purely harmless mistakes.
  • Courts must consider lesser sanctions, prejudice to the appellee, and whether the appellant has engaged in obstinate or intentional delay.

Royal Street Bistro explicitly cites and applies CPDC, particularly its insistence that:

  • delayed enforcement of a judgment, standing alone, is not sufficient prejudice; and
  • procedural sanctions should be proportionate to the misconduct and the harm caused.

4. In re Cleveland Imaging & Surgical Hospital, L.L.C., 26 F.4th 285 (5th Cir. 2022)

As discussed above, Cleveland Imaging held that the Fifth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review an unappealed order—where the appellants had never filed a notice of appeal that embraced the dismissal of the adversary proceeding. It also reaffirmed that main bankruptcy cases and adversary proceedings are treated as distinct for appellate purposes (citing In re Dorsey).

In Royal Street Bistro, the court distinguished Cleveland Imaging, limiting it to situations where no notice of appeal has been filed as to a particular order or proceeding. The case does not transform Rule 8003 defects into jurisdictional errors.

5. In re Mahadevan, 2024 WL 3292744 (5th Cir. 2024)

Mahadevan is an unpublished decision cited to confirm that dismissal of a bankruptcy appeal for Rule 8003 violations is reviewed for abuse of discretion. It reinforces the notion that these are nonjurisdictional, discretionary matters.

6. In re Payne, 2023 WL 7314356 (5th Cir. 2023)

Payne reiterates the CPDC factors: courts should consider appropriate sanctions, prejudice, and any obstinately dilatory conduct before dismissing an appeal for procedural infractions.

Royal Street Bistro uses Payne to confirm that this analytical framework is still controlling.

7. In re McKenzie, 1998 WL 414308 (5th Cir. 1998), and In re Braniff Airways, 774 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir. 1985)

These older cases stand for the proposition that dismissal of a bankruptcy appeal is an “extremely severe” sanction to be used only in “the most egregious of situations.” The Fifth Circuit relied on them to underscore that the sanction imposed here was disproportionate.

8. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bowles emphasizes that time limits prescribed by statute for filing appeals are jurisdictional. The Fifth Circuit invoked Bowles to support linking the jurisdictional nature of the appeal deadline to Congress’s express incorporation of Rule 8002 in § 158(c)(2).

9. Montano v. Texas, 867 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 2017) and Robertson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 814 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2015)

These decisions articulate the doctrine that courts of appeals are “courts of review, not of first view,” and ordinarily should not address issues (including subject‑matter jurisdiction arguments) that the district court has not yet considered. Royal Street Bistro uses them to justify remanding rather than adjudicating RSB’s subject‑matter jurisdiction challenge.

VI. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. What Is a Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding?

A bankruptcy case consists of:

  • the main case, where the debtor’s assets and liabilities are administered, and
  • separate adversary proceedings, which are essentially lawsuits within the bankruptcy case—disputes over specific claims, contracts, fraud, preferences, or other contested matters.

Appeals from orders in adversary proceedings are treated separately from appeals in the main case. That is why, in Cleveland Imaging, a notice of appeal filed in the main case did not bring up for review a dismissal order in an adversary proceeding.

2. Bankruptcy Rule 8002 vs. Rule 8003

  • Rule 8002(a)(1): Sets the time limit for filing a notice of appeal from a bankruptcy court judgment, order, or decree—currently 14 days from entry. Because this time limit is incorporated into 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2), it is jurisdictional in the Fifth Circuit: missing this deadline (absent a Rule‑based extension) generally deprives the appellate court of authority to hear the appeal.
  • Rule 8003(a): Governs the form and content of the notice of appeal. It requires, among other things, that:
    • the notice specify the party taking the appeal;
    • designate the judgment, order, or decree being appealed; and
    • be accompanied by a copy of that judgment, order, or decree (Rule 8003(a)(3)(B)).
    These are not jurisdictional requirements; they are claim‑processing rules. Violations may be sanctioned under Rule 8003(a)(2), but they do not automatically void the appeal.

3. Jurisdictional Rule vs. Claim‑Processing Rule

A jurisdictional rule is a condition imposed by Congress on the court’s power to hear a case. If it is not satisfied, the court must dismiss, even if nobody objects. For bankruptcy appeals in the Fifth Circuit, the 14‑day filing deadline in Rule 8002, as incorporated by § 158(c)(2), is such a rule.

A claim‑processing rule governs how parties must present their claims and how the court processes them, but does not limit the court’s subject‑matter jurisdiction. Rule 8003’s attachment requirement is such a rule:

  • Parties should comply with it.
  • Court clerks can issue deficiency notices.
  • Courts can impose sanctions for noncompliance, including (in extreme cases) dismissal.
  • But failure to comply does not, by itself, rob the court of jurisdiction if the notice of appeal was timely filed and otherwise sufficient.

4. “Obstinately Dilatory Conduct”

The phrase “obstinately dilatory conduct” is drawn from CPDC and related cases. It refers to a party’s pattern of:

  • willfully delaying the proceedings,
  • repeatedly ignoring deadlines or court orders, or
  • using procedural tactics primarily to obstruct or stall resolution.

Such behavior can justify more severe sanctions, including dismissal. By contrast, an isolated, negligent oversight—such as missing a clerk’s short cure deadline by ten days with no prior history of delay—will rarely warrant dismissal.

5. Dismissal vs. Lesser Sanctions

When a court is confronted with a nonjurisdictional procedural violation in a bankruptcy appeal, it has a range of possible responses:

  • No sanction, if the violation is trivial or harmless.
  • Corrective orders, such as directing the appellant to cure the defect by a new deadline.
  • Monetary sanctions against counsel (not the party), especially where the party is blameless but counsel has been careless.
  • Cost‑shifting, such as ordering the appellant to pay the appellee’s attorney’s fees associated with addressing the defect.
  • Striking a defective filing, with leave to re‑file properly (if jurisdictional requirements are still satisfied).
  • Dismissal of the appeal, reserved for situations involving serious prejudice, repeated violations, or egregious delay.

Royal Street Bistro teaches that courts must consciously consider this spectrum rather than reflexively jumping to dismissal.

VII. Practical and Doctrinal Impact

A. For Bankruptcy Practitioners

For lawyers and parties involved in bankruptcy appeals in the Fifth Circuit, this decision carries several practical lessons:

  1. Timeliness is paramount. Filing the notice of appeal within 14 days remains the non‑negotiable, jurisdictional prerequisite. No amount of equitable argument or harmless‑error reasoning can overcome a missed Rule 8002 deadline in this circuit.
  2. Content and attachments still matter—but are not fatal if initially defective. Counsel must still comply with Rule 8003’s requirements, including attaching the judgment. However, if the notice is timely and clearly identifies the appealed judgment, a missing attachment will not, by itself, doom the appeal.
  3. Promptly cure deficiencies and build a record. When a clerk issues a deficiency notice, practitioners should:
    • cure the defect as quickly as possible;
    • if delay is unavoidable, explain the reasons on the record; and
    • if facing a motion to dismiss, detail the lack of prejudice and absence of bad faith.
  4. Push back against disproportionate sanctions. If opposing counsel seeks dismissal for a minor procedural error, practitioners can now rely on Royal Street Bistro, Serta Simmons, and CPDC to argue:
    • that dismissal is reserved for egregious misconduct,
    • that lesser sanctions (if any) are more appropriate, and
    • that a showing of actual prejudice is essential.
  5. Preserve and present jurisdictional challenges properly. If a party believes the bankruptcy court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction, it must:
    • raise the issue in its appeal to the district court, and
    • ensure the district court rules on it, so that the issue is properly positioned for appellate review.

B. For District Courts Acting as Appellate Courts in Bankruptcy

The decision sends a clear message to district courts in their appellate role:

  • They must not treat Rule 8003 violations as jurisdictional—only the Rule 8002 filing deadline is jurisdictional.
  • They should implement a structured analysis under Rule 8003(a)(2) before imposing sanctions, explicitly considering:
    • whether the violation caused real prejudice to the appellee;
    • whether the appellant engaged in repeated or intentional delay or instead made an isolated, negligent error;
    • whether lesser sanctions (including sanctions falling on counsel rather than the client) would suffice; and
    • the overarching goal of efficient, merits‑based resolution of bankruptcy disputes.
  • They should be cautious about using dismissal, reserving it for “the most egregious of situations.”

C. For the Development of Bankruptcy Appellate Jurisprudence

Doctrinally, Royal Street Bistro is significant for at least three reasons:

  1. It reinforces the statute–rule distinction in jurisdictional analysis. Following Bowles and Berman‑Smith, the decision further entrenches the principle that only statutory conditions, or rules clearly incorporated by statute, are jurisdictional. This aligns bankruptcy appellate practice with the broader federal trend of confining the “jurisdictional” label to clearly stated statutory conditions.
  2. It solidifies the nonjurisdictional status of Rule 8003 defects. Combined with Serta Simmons, this case should eliminate any lingering confusion in the Fifth Circuit about whether missing attachments or similar content errors in a timely notice of appeal deprive the district court of jurisdiction. They do not.
  3. It elevates the standard for dismissing bankruptcy appeals for procedural missteps. By insisting on consideration of prejudice, culpability, and alternative sanctions, and by emphasizing the severity of dismissal, the court promotes a more measured, proportional approach to procedural enforcement—one that favors deciding appeals on the merits when reasonably possible.

D. Possible Critiques and Open Questions

While the decision largely follows existing precedent, it invites a few points of discussion:

  • How late is too late? The corrected notice here was filed 21 days after the judgment, i.e., one week past the jurisdictional deadline but only ten days after the clerk’s deficiency deadline. The opinion does not define a bright line for when delay plus a Rule 8003 violation becomes “egregious.” Future cases may explore how much delay and how many repeated violations justify dismissal.
  • Scope of “no prejudice” reasoning. The court reaffirmed that delayed enforcement of a judgment is not, standing alone, sufficient prejudice. But in cases where delay might affect the administration of a bankruptcy estate (e.g., delaying distributions, asset sales, or reorganization), courts may find more concrete prejudice. How courts weigh such factors remains a fact‑intensive inquiry.
  • Interaction with local rules and clerk practices. Many bankruptcy courts and district courts have local rules and standard deficiency notices. Royal Street Bistro suggests that deficiency notices should be clear about potential consequences and that courts should be cautious about going beyond those notices—particularly to the point of dismissal—without additional warning or analysis.

VIII. Conclusion

Royal Street Bistro v. Arrowhead Capital is an important clarifying decision in Fifth Circuit bankruptcy appellate practice. It establishes and confirms several key principles:

  • Timely filing of a notice of appeal under Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1), as required by 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2), is jurisdictional; failure to meet this deadline mandates dismissal.
  • By contrast, failure to attach the judgment, order, or decree as required by Bankruptcy Rule 8003(a)(3)(B) is a nonjurisdictional, claim‑processing defect. A timely notice of appeal that clearly designates the appealed judgment remains jurisdictionally valid, even if initially missing the attachment.
  • Under Rule 8003(a)(2), district courts have discretion to impose sanctions for nonjurisdictional defects, but must:
    • consider lesser sanctions before resorting to dismissal,
    • assess whether the appellee has suffered real prejudice beyond mere delay in enforcement, and
    • evaluate whether the appellant engaged in obstinate or egregious dilatory conduct.
  • Dismissal of a bankruptcy appeal is an “extremely severe sanction,” reserved for “the most egregious of situations,” not for isolated, non‑prejudicial missteps such as a slightly delayed cure of a missing attachment.
  • Appellate courts will ordinarily decline to decide issues, including subject‑matter jurisdiction challenges, that the district court has not addressed in the first instance, adhering to the principle that they are courts of review, not first view.

Taken together, these holdings reflect a coherent approach: enforce jurisdictional deadlines rigorously, but handle nonjurisdictional procedural missteps flexibly and proportionally, with a strong preference for adjudicating appeals on their merits. Royal Street Bistro thus contributes meaningfully to a more predictable and fair bankruptcy appellate process in the Fifth Circuit.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Comments