than that faced by named defendants in other cases who were held not to be persons aggrieved. In In re El San Juan Hotel, for example, the First Circuit held that a former bankruptcy trustee did not have appellate standing to challenge the appointment of counsel for the estate to bring a fraudulent concealment action against him. 809 F.2d at 155. Because the former trustee’s “only interest [wa]s as party defendant,” the First Circuit held that the appointment “ha[d] no direct and immediate impact on [his] pecuniary interests.” Id. This was the case even though the moving party explicitly “request[ed] permission to prosecute a suit” and the bankruptcy court “granted the requisite leave to file the complaint.” Id. at 153 (emphasis added). See also Moran, 2006 WL 3253128, at *5 (<HOLDING>). In re Fondiller, upon which the JT & T
holding that the notice of claim filed by a guardian in a wrongful death action even though erroneously filed on the guardians own behalf was sufficient to preserve the parents claim because the guardian was legally authorized to file a claim on behalf of the parent holding claimant waived right to jury trial on claims brought against it on behalf of bankruptcy estate when it submitted its proof of claim against the estate and subjected itself to the equitable powers of the bankruptcy court holding that west virginia waived sovereign immunity by initiating adversary proceeding even though it had not filed a proof of claim holding that an adversary defendant was not a person aggrieved even though creditor committee acting on behalf of the estate had already filed claims against him holding that a general release covered plaintiffs claim even though he had already filed an eeoc charge