In re Peoples

• Decision Date: 04 January 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–8017.,12–8017.
• Parties: In re Daniel PEOPLES, Jr., Debtor.
• Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Sixth Circuit

485 B.R. 478

In re Daniel PEOPLES, Jr., Debtor.

No. 12–8017.

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit.

Decided and Filed: Jan. 4, 2013.

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 11–30146.
ON BRIEF:Thomas R. Noland, Michael R. Keefe, Statman, Harris & Eyrich, LLC, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee. Daniel Peoples, Jr., Dayton, Ohio, pro se.

Before: EMERSON, HARRIS, and SHEA–STONUM, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.

OPINION
ARTHUR I. HARRIS, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge.

This appeal arises from an order entered by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio approving the Chapter 7 trustee's motion to settle and compromise the debtor's employment discrimination claims.

I. ISSUES ON APPEAL

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the bankruptcy court erred when it approved the Chapter 7 trustee's proposed settlement of the debtor's employment discrimination claims. For the reasons that follow, the order of the bankruptcy court is AFFIRMED.

II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction to decide this appeal. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has authorized appeals to the Panel, and neither party timely elected to have this appeal heard by the district court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)(6), (c)(1). A final order of a bankruptcy court may be appealed as of right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). On April 14, 2012, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the trustee's motion to settle and compromise claims. A bankruptcy court's order approving a trustee's motion to settle and compromise claims is a final, appealable order. Johnson v. Jackson Family Television Inc. (In re Media Cent., Inc.), 190 B.R. 316, 321 (E.D.Tenn.1994). The debtor timely filed a notice of appeal on April 23, 2012.

“The bankruptcy court's approval of a settlement agreement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” In re MQVP, Inc., 10–2225, 2012 WL 1233019, at *2 (6th Cir. Apr. 13, 2012) (unpublished) (citing Lyndon Prop. Ins. Co. v. E. Ky. Univ., 200 F. App'x 409, 413 (6th Cir.2006)). Under an abuse of discretion standard of review, “[t]he question is not how the reviewing court would have ruled, but rather whether a reasonable person could agree with the bankruptcy court's decision; if reasonable persons could differ as to the issue, then there is no abuse of discretion.” Mayor of Baltimore v. W. Va. (In re Eagle–Picher Indus., Inc.), 285 F.3d 522, 529 (6th Cir.2002) (citations omitted).

III. FACTS

From April 2007 until his termination in late February 2010, Daniel Peoples, Jr. (“Debtor”) worked as an employee for Veolia Water North America Operating Service, Inc. and Veolia Water America, LLC (collectively, “Veolia”). In early-December 2010, Debtor retained counsel to pursue employment discrimination claims against Veolia and filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”).

On January 13, 2011, fifteen days after signing an amended EEOC charge, Debtor filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Debtor failed to disclose his potential claims against Veolia in his bankruptcy schedules, Statement of Financial Affairs, and at his § 341 meeting of creditors. On March 17, 2011—three days after the meeting of creditors—Debtor filed suit against Veolia. In his suit, Debtor alleged racial discrimination and prayed for relief in excess of $25,000 dollars. Two weeks after filing suit, Debtor received his “right to sue” letter from the EEOC and amended his Complaint to include Title VII claims. Veolia removed Debtor's case to federal district court.

Debtor never notified the Chapter 7 trustee (“Trustee”) of his discrimination claims, and the bankruptcy court entered an order discharging Debtor on June 2, 2011. Trustee eventually learned of Debtor's claims in late July 2011, and at Trustee's request, the bankruptcy court reopened the Debtor's bankruptcy case. On September 13, 2011, Veolia moved for summary judgment on Debtor's employment discrimination claims in the district court based upon judicial estoppel because Debtor failed to disclose the claims in proceedings before the bankruptcy court. Subsequently, Trustee...