Akbari contends that her identification of the October 27, 2014, Order Confirming First Amended Plan of Liquidation filed by Charlotte Leff, Executrix of the Estate of Eleanor Jacoby, filed October 27, 2014 in the Bankruptcy Court (Doc. 261), filed January 9, 2015 in the District Court (Doc. 19), constituted fair notice of appeal for all interlocutory orders merged therein. Akbari cites In re Lewis, 247 F. App'x 998, 1002 (10th Cir. 2007)(unpublished), for the proposition that rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is satisfied by an appeal from a final order, which merges all interlocutory orders, despite that the appellant did not list each interlocutory order from which she appealed. In re Lewis relies, however, on Cooper v. American Automobile Insurance Co., 978 F.2d 602, 607-09 (10th Cir. 1992), for this point.
We agree, however, with the bankruptcy court's contrary view: viz. , it is plain to us from the unambiguous language of § 523(a)(8)(A)(ii) that educational loans do not constitute such an obligation. Reviewing de novo the bankruptcy court's denial of Navient's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Cohen v. Chernushin (In re Chernushin ), 911 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 2018) ; see also Lewis v. BNC Mortg., Inc. (In re Lewis ), 247 F. App'x 998, 1002 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished), we thus reject both arguments and affirm the bankruptcy court's interlocutory order. A
. See In re Lewis, 247 Fed.Appx. 998, 1002 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[A] notice of appeal which names the final judgment is sufficient to support review of all earlier orders that merge in the final judgment.” (quotations omitted)).
Id. at 482. Abboud v. Abboud (In re Abboud), 237 B.R. 777 (10th Cir. BAP 1999) (bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was applicable and precluded it from appellate review of the state court's decision in foreclosure action); In re Lewis, 342 B.R. 384, 2006 WL 1308352, at *13 (10th Cir. BAP May 4, 2006), aff'd, 247 F. App'x 998 (10th Cir. 2007) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine is applicable to the issue of whether bank was the proper party in interest to bring the foreclosure action.). Whether Deutsche Bank was the proper party in interest to bring the foreclosure action was the question twice asked and answered by the state court.