govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_25-cv-02520-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
IN RE: PORT LOUIS OWNERS 
ASSOCIATION, INC. 
CIVIL ACTION 
 NO. 25-2520 
 
 
 
SECTION “N” 
ORDER & REASONS 
 Before the Court is Debtor and Appellee Port Louis Owners Association, Inc.’s 
Motion to Dismiss Appeal or Alternatively, to Strike Improper Record Designations for 
Appeal, and for Appropriate Sanctions.1 Creditors and Appellants Charles E. McKnight, 
Charles M. McKnight, and Wendy McKnight Alessi (“Creditors”) oppose the motion.2 
After careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, the record, and applicable law, 
the Court issues this Order & Reasons. 
I. Factual Background 
 On December 3, 2025 , the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of 
Louisiana held an evidentiary hearing on Creditors ’ Claim 8. Creditor s did not att end. 
The parties disagree as to whether Creditors received proper notice of the hearing. The 
bankruptcy court, after presiding over the introduction of witness testimony and exhibits, 
 
1 R. Doc. 2. 
2 R. Doc. 6. 

2 
 
ruled in Debtor’s favor, dismissing and striking Creditors’ claim in an order entered on 
the same day.3 
 On December 16, 2025, Creditors timely appealed and filed a motion for relief from 
the order.4 Creditors seek relief on a number of grounds, including that service and notice 
regarding the hearing were constitutionally inadequate, they were prejudiced by 
misleading correspondence and late discovery, the bankruptcy court ruled in part based 
on materially false statements , and manifest injustice . On December 29, 2025, Creditors 
filed with the bankruptcy court a de signation of items to be included in the record on 
appeal and a statement of the issues to be presented. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1).5 On 
January 22, 2026, Creditors filed a corrected statement of issues and rec ord designation, 
this time identifying docket numbers with each item listed. 6 Upon motion , the 
bankruptcy court extended Debtor ’s time to file its record designations until March 20, 
2026.7 
 On February 2, 2026, Debtor filed the present motion asking this Court to dismiss 
the appeal or strike improper reco rd designations by the pro se Creditors, and to levy 
sanctions against Creditors. 8 Debtor argues that Creditors improperly designated 
multiple documents that were not introduced as evidence during the December 3, 2025, 
 
3 In re Port Louis Owners Assoc., Inc., No. 24-12511, Dkt. 223 (Bankr. E.D. La. Dec. 3, 2025). 
4 R. Doc. 1. 
5 In re Port Louis Owners Assoc., Inc., No. 24-12511, Dkt. 242. 
6 Id., Dkt. 252. 
7 Id., Dkt. 260. 
8 R. Doc. 2. 

3 
 
evidentiary hearing and “many of which have never been previously filed into the 
record.”9 
On February 23, 2026, the bankruptcy court transmitted to t his Court what it 
described as an incomplete record on appeal.10 The bankruptcy court observed that some 
pleading numbers for designated documents “do not match the description in the 
designation” and that no party has ordered the hearing transcript.11 
II. Law & Analysis 
 Rule 8009 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure provides the procedure 
by which the parties are to assemble the record on appeal from a bankruptcy court 
decision. The record on appeal consists of items designated by the parties that were part 
of the bankruptcy court’s record in the first instance. The rule specifies certain items that 
the record on appeal “must include.”12 One such item is the catcha ll “items designated 
by the parties.”13 Nevertheless, the rule “does not permit items to be added to the record 
on appeal to the district court if they were not part of the record before the bankruptcy 
court.”14 Rule 8009(e)(1) provides that “[i]f an item has been improperly designated as 
part of the record on appeal, a party may move to strike that item.” 
 
9 R. Doc. 2-1 at 2. 
10 R. Doc. 7. 
11 R. Doc. 7-5. 
12 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(4). 
13 Id. 
14 Wooley v. Haynes & Boone, LLP, 480 Fed. App’x 327, 328 (5th Cir. 2012) (addressing former 
Rule 8006, as Rule 8009 “ is derived from former Rule 8006,” following amendments to the rules in 
2014. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009 advisory committee’s note (2014)). 

4 
 
 Debtor has so moved here, contending that certain docket entries designated by 
Creditors should be stricken from the record on appeal because they “hav[e] nothing to 
do with the testimony and exhibits introduced into evidence for the Bankruptcy Court’s 
consideration on December 3, 2025.”15 Debtor gives examples such as docket entries that 
contain certain discovery requests and responses, evidence of work perform ed on 
Creditors’ property, and the docket sheet itself. However, the cases cited by Debtor16 
confirm that the rule governing formation of the record on appeal “ should be construed 
liberally” so that the record will “contain the documentation necessary to aff ord the 
reviewing court a complete understanding of the case.”17 The cited cases generally 
involve materials that were “never filed or otherwise presented to” the bankruptcy court 
as part of the underlying proceedings.18 More fundamentally, the cases specify that any 
disputes regarding the content of the record on appeal are to be “resolved by the 
bankruptcy court, where the record was designated, and where the matter sought to be 
included in the record was (or should have been) presented.”19 Here, the reco rd 
designations at issue have docket numbers indicating that they were filed in the 
 
15 R. Doc. 2-1 at 4-5. 
16 R. Doc. 2-1 at 5. 
17 In re Candor Diamond Corp., 26 B.R. 844, 846 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1983). 
18 In re Ames Dep’t Stores, Inc., 320 B.R. 518, 520 ( Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005); see also In re Food 
Fair, Inc., 15 B.R. 569, 572 ( Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 198 1) ( involving “materials from other adversary 
proceedings arising from the same bankruptcy case”). 
19 In re Ames Dep’t Stores, Inc., 320 B.R. at 520-21; see also In re W.T. Grant Co., 432 F. Supp. 
105, 107 (S.D.N.Y.) ( “it would be pointless to s ubmit this dispute over the record on appeal to the 
bankruptcy court since all parties are in agreement that the three letters objected to … came before 
the bankruptcy court and were relied upon in rendering its decision”). 

5 
 
bankruptcy court. Creditors’ appeal raises issues regarding the adequacy of the notice 
they received, their inability to present evidence at the hearing , and the prejudice they 
experienced, suggesting that a record restricted to the evidence presented at the hearing 
would be too limited to provide the necessary context for their appeal. To the extent 
Debtor nevertheless contends the challenged materials are improperly included, the 
bankruptcy court is the proper for um for resolving disputes over t he contents of the 
record on appeal. 
Rule 8009 also provides that the appellant has a duty to order a transcript of 
proceedings necessary for the appeal within 14 days after the judgment or order they are 
appealing, or to file a certificate stating that the appellant is not ordering a transcript. 20 
This requirement is consistent with Rule 8009(a)(4), which requires that the record on 
appeal “must include” “any opinion, findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to 
the issues on appeal, including transcripts of all oral rulings” and “any transcript ordered 
under (b).” The bankruptcy court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law f or its ruling 
of December 3, 2025, were read in open court such that a transcript of the hearing would 
be necessary for an appeal challenging the court’s decision. Indeed, the purpose of the 
requirement is to “provide the reviewing court with an adequate basis for evaluating the 
appellant’s claims on ap peal.”21 “The burden of creating an adequate record rests with 
 
20 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(b). 
21 In re CPDC Inc., 221 F.3d 693, 698 (5th Cir. 2000)). 

6 
 
the appellant, who may not u rge an issue on appeal if he has failed to provide the 
appellate court with the requisite record excerpts.”22 
The docket reflects that Creditors have not complied with their duty to order th e 
hearing transcript. Without the trans cript, or at least the relevant portions thereof, 
Creditors will have no basis to ar gue on appeal that the bankruptcy court relied on 
improper materials or made unsupported findings of fact or conclusions of law. 
Finally, Debtor’s request for sanctions is premised on the alleged inability of 
Creditors to pursue their appeal because the appeal record must be limited to the 
evidence introduced at the December 3, 2025, hearing, and since Creditors did not appear 
at the hearing, they will h ave no evidence with which to argue the bankruptcy court 
erred. As discussed above, however, Debtor failed to establish that the record on appeal 
is limited to the evidence presented at the hearing, and, in any event, its motion to strike 
any other material has not been filed with the appropriate court. More fundamentally, 
“the district court does not invariably dismiss for breaches of … procedural rules. ”23 
Accordingly, the Court declines to award sanctions. 
III. Conclusion 
Accordingly, 
IT IS ORDERED that Debtors’ motion is GRANTED IN PART. Creditors 
shall order a transcript of the December 3, 2025, hearing or file a certificate stating 
 
22 Id. 
23 Id. at 698-99. 

7 
 
they are not ordering a transcript pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(b) by June 5, 
2026. Debtor’s motion is DENIED in all other respects. 
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of May, 2026. 
ANNA ST. JOHN 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Passage view · GavelSight