In Re. Jean Y Duplessis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS __________________________________________ ) In re: JEAN Y. DUPLESSIS, ) Civil Action No. 22-10329-GAO Debtor. ) ) JEAN Y. DUPLESSIS, ) (Chapter 11 Case No. 21-11678-JEB) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON, ) UNITED STATES TRUSTEE FOR REGION 1, ) Appellee. ) __________________________________________) ORDER March 16, 2023 O’TOOLE, D.J. The appellant Jean Y. Duplessis appeals the dismissal of his Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies the appeal. “A bankruptcy court’s order dismissing a debtor’s case should be overturned only if the debtors establish that the bankruptcy court committed a clear abuse of discretion.” In re Eldorado Canyon Props., LLC, 505 B.R. 601, 603 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Rosado, No. PR 11– 081, 2012 WL 2564375 , at *3 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. June 29, 2012)). Dismissal for cause is an abuse of discretion only if the bankruptcy court “does not apply the correct law” or “rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact.” In re Andover Covered Bridge, LLC, 553 B.R. 162, 171 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2016) (quoting In re De Jounghe, 334 B.R. 760, 765 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2005)). The Bankruptcy Court offered several compelling reasons for dismissal. Principal among those reasons was that Duplessis had failed to confirm a plan in his previous bankruptcy cases and had no prospect of doing so in this current one. That reason alone is sufficient under binding First Circuit case law to deny appellate review. Samuels v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, FSB, No. BAP MB 19-003, 2019 WL 6211209 , at *5 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Nov. 19, 2019), aff’d sub nom. In re Samuels, No. 20-9001, 2022 WL 18357190 (1st Cir. Aug. 9, 2022) (affirming dismissal because of the debtor’s “inability to propose a confirmable plan” despite multiple attempts over a one-year period). The Bankruptcy Court’s order of dismissal is AFFIRMED. It is SO ORDERED. /s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr. United States District Judge