in Re: Continental Airlines Inc. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. In re: Continental Airlines , Nos. 03-2374

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-4162
___________
IN RE: CONTINENTAL AIRLINES INC., et al.,
Debtors
Brownie N. Inman,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-00568)
District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 18, 2008
Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and ROTH, Circuit Judge
(Opinion filed July 8, 2008)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Brownie N. Inman appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, which granted Continental Airlines, Inc.’s motion to dismiss his
appeal of the July 24, 2006 order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of

-- 1 of 5 --

1 “‘LPP Claimants’ refers to a group of former Eastern pilots [including Inman] whose
claims in this appeal are based on certain ‘labor protective provisions’ (LPPs) contained
in the collective bargaining agreement.” In re Continental Airlines, 125 F.3d 120, 124 n.1
(3d Cir. 1997) (“Continental I”).
2 Claimants were required to file a claim by April 3, 2002 in order to receive money
from the settlement. Inman did not file a claim.
3 Appellees characterize the District Court’s decision as a decision on the merits.
However, an untimely appeal deprives the District Court of jurisdiction to consider the
merits of an appeal. In re: Flanagan, 999 F.2d 753, 756 (3d Cir. 1993).
2
Delaware. The Bankruptcy Court had denied, inter alia, Inman’s motion to compel
compliance with a January 31, 2002 settlement agreement, and his motion to reopen the
bankruptcy proceeding to add certain claimants. We will affirm the District Court’s
order.
As we write primarily for the parties, we need not set forth an involved history of
this case. Pertinent to this appeal, on January 31, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court approved a
settlement between Continental and the LPP1 claimants.2 Inman and others filed appeals
to the District Court. In orders entered March 31, 2003, the District Court affirmed the
Bankruptcy Court’s settlement order, found the appeals of the order moot, and granted the
appellees’ motions to dismiss the appeals. The Court also found that Inman’s appeal was
untimely.3 Inman did not appeal the decision to this Court, but two other pilots did
appeal. This Court affirmed the District Court judgment. See O’Neill v. Continental
Airlines, Inc. (In re: Continental Airlines), Nos. 03-2374 and 03-2375, 94 Fed. Appx. 968
(Table) (3d Cir. March 5, 2004) (not precedential); and Adams v. Continental Airlines,
Inc. (In re: Continental Airlines), No. 03-2376, 94 Fed. Appx. 968 (Table) (3d Cir. March

-- 2 of 5 --

4 Pilots Trigg Adams and Ramon O’Neill filed similar motions.
5 Adams, O’Neill, and Inman all appealed.
3
5, 2004) (not precedential).
Years later, in the summer of 2006, Inman filed a “Motion of Objection to the
Class Action Plaintiffs Stipulations for Motion to Reopen” (Appendix at Tab R; Bankr.
Dkt. #440); and a “Motion to Compel and Compliance with January 31, 2002 Order”
(Appendix at Tab R; Bankr. Dkt. #432).4 The latter motion requested payment of stock
and monetary benefits under the settlement, and asked that the parties produce a seniority
list so that “all 1300 deliberately overlooked pilots can receive their settlements.” The
“Motion of Objection” similarly complained that certain pilots had been excluded from
the class action settlement, and asked that the matter be reopened.
The Bankruptcy Court denied the motions after a hearing, ruling that the
inclusiveness of the class had been litigated years earlier, and noting that certain pilots
had opted to not file a timely claim. On appeal, the District Court found “no error in the
bankruptcy court’s decision,” noted that the appellants5 had no standing to assert the
rights of others, and that the appellants had waived their right to participate in the
settlement by failing to timely file a claim. Inman timely appealed the District Court’s
order.
We construe Inman’s brief to raise the following issues or requests: (1) Inman asks
that some 1500 “viable LPP claims” be recognized, and that the claimants be allowed

-- 3 of 5 --

6 This claim fails for the additional reasons that the claim was not raised until
approximately four years after Inman alleges the “elimination” occurred, and because
Inman does not appear to have raised the issue in the Bankruptcy Court.
4
either arbitration or inclusion in the Class Settlement; (2) Inman asks the Court to affirm
his right to participate in arbitration or in the Class Settlement; (3) Inman claims that
pilots hired on or after March 3, 1989 (including Inman) were improperly eliminated from
participating in the settlement; (4) certain other claimants were “illegally eliminated”
from the list of those eligible to participate in the settlement.
The District Court properly held that Inman lacked standing to raise claims
pertaining to the rights of pilots other than himself. In re: PWS Holding Corp., 228 F.3d
224, 248-49 (3d Cir. 2000). Thus, Inman lacks standing to raise the first and fourth issues
listed above.
Inman’s second and third claims also fail. First, this Court has ruled that any right
an Eastern pilot had to arbitration regarding an LPP claim was extinguished when the
claims were discharged, settled or waived. The Eastern Pilots Merger Committee, Inc. v.
Continental Airlines, Inc. (In re Continental Airlines, Inc.), 484 F.3d 173, 180-81 (3d Cir.
2007). Second, to the extent Inman asks to be included in the Settlement, he has waived
the right to do so, as he failed to timely file a claim. Thus, Inman’s argument that “new
hires” such as himself, were improperly eliminated from the settlement, is also
foreclosed; even if Inman could prove that “new hires” were improperly eliminated, he
lacks standing to do so because he failed to file a claim.6

-- 4 of 5 --

7 As we have considered the briefs and appendices of the parties, the motion for
summary affirmance is denied as moot.
5
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.7

-- 5 of 5 --