Case ID: a3d_99/html/0988-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eileen VIEIRA v. GE MONEY BANK et al.
    No. 14-42-Appeal.
    Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
    Sept. 25, 2014.
    George E. Babcock, Esq.
    Maura K. McKelvey, Esq., Ranen S. Schechner, Esq.
   ORDER

This case came before the Court in conference on September 18, 2014 on the defendants’ motion for a ruling on a previously-deferred motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal. After careful review of the motion and accompanying papers, the Court concludes that dismissal of the appeal is warranted.

We note, first of all, that the defendants’ dismissal motion initially came before the Court for decision at the March 20, 2014 conference. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff’s appeal should be dismissed as untimely. The Court had then recently received notice of the plaintiffs Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing and a question arose as to whether the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362 precluded action on the dismissal motion at that time. The Court therefore deferred action on the dismissal motion and directed counsel for the parties to file memoranda addressing this issue. The plaintiffs memorandum was due on or before April 7, 2014. However, though the plaintiffs counsel was subsequently granted a thirty-day extension of this filing period, he failed to comply with the Court’s directive, and he also neglected to inform this Court that on June 17, 2014, his client received a discharge in bankruptcy pursuant to Title 11, section 727, of the Bankruptcy Code, thus rendering the automatic stay issue moot. Finally, it must be noted that the plaintiff’s counsel has failed to comply with the provisions of Article I, Rule 11 of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure pertaining to an appellant’s obligation to secure the transmission of the record on appeal to this Court and/or to timely seek extensions of the transmission period where needed. On August 12, 2014, the defendants’ counsel informed the Court of the plaintiff’s bankruptcy discharge and requested a ruling on the defendants’ pending dismissal motion. The plaintiffs counsel has not responded to the defendants’ latest filing.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, i.e. the plaintiffs untimely notice of appeal, her noncompliance with the provisions of Rule 11 pertaining to the transmission of the record on appeal, and her disregard of this Court’s directive to file a memorandum on the automatic stay issue, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs appeal is hereby granted.