Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07796/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07796-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: FRED AND LINDA KOELLING,

Debtors/Appellants/

Cross-Appellees.

__________________________________/

QMECT, INC.,

Debtor/Plaintiff,

No. C 06-7796 PJH

BK Case Nos. 04-46443 T

 04-41044 T

Adv. Case Nos. 04-4190 AT

 04-4365 AT

 04-4366 AT

v. BRIEFING ORDER RE: SECOND

BURLINGAME CAPITAL PARTNERS, II, MOTION TO DISMISS

L.P.; ELECTROCHEM FUNDING, LLC,

Defendants/Appellees/

Cross-Appellants.

_________________________________/

On August 8, 2007, appellees/cross-appellants’ Burlingame Capital Partners II, L.P.

and Electrochem Funding, LLC (collectively “Burlingame”) filed a second motion to dismiss

appellants/cross-appellees Linda and Fred Koelling’s (“Koellings”) bankruptcy appeal as

untimely. The motion will be decided on the papers. The Koellings’ opposition is due no

later than fourteen days from the date of this order, August 23, 2007. Burlingame’s reply,

Case 4:06-cv-07796-PJH Document 29 Filed 08/09/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

if any, is due no later than twenty-one days from the date of this order, August 30, 2007. 

Given the numerous delays in this case to date, the parties are advised that no

continuances of this briefing schedule will be granted. In the opposition and reply briefs,

the parties should address the timeliness of Burlingame’s subsequent motion to dismiss in

addition to the merits of the motion.

Additionally, the parties are further advised that the filing of this motion will have no

impact on the briefing schedule of the cross-appeals as set forth in this court’s July 10,

2007 order denying Burlingame’s first motion to dismiss. The briefs on the merits of the

cross-appeals remain due in accordance with the deadlines set by that order, and no

continuances will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2007

___________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07796-PJH Document 29 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 2