Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02137/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02137-5/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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: CONE ENGINEERING

CONTRACTORS, Inc., a California

Corporation, C 05-2137 PJH

Debtor/Appellant. ORDER DENYING REQUEST

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE OPENING BRIEF

_______________________________/

Debtor/Appellant filed this bankruptcy appeal on May 24, 2005, appealing the

bankruptcy court’s allowance of appellee, the State Compensation Insurance Fund’s claims. 

Appellant’s opening brief was originally due no later than July 13, 2005. This court

subsequently signed three stipulations to extend the time for appellant to file its opening brief. 

On September 6, 2005, this court issued an order to show cause because appellant failed to

file its brief pursuant to the third stipulated and court-ordered deadline. Appellant responded

with its fourth stipulated request for an extension of time, which this court granted on

September 15, 2005, but admonished the parties that it would grant no further extensions. 

Pursuant to that order, appellant’s brief was due October 10, 2005. 

Appellant again failed to file the brief; and, on October 14, 2005, filed with this court a

letter explaining why it “did not intend to file its brief due in connection with the appeal.” 

Appellant notified this court that it had settled its claim with appellee, and is awaiting

bankruptcy court approval. This court advised appellant that the letter was insufficient to

extend the court-ordered deadline.

Case 4:05-cv-02137-PJH Document 17 Filed 10/24/05 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

Appellant now submits its fifth extension of time to file its opening brief. Appellant

contends that it is awaiting bankruptcy court approval of the settlement. However, appellant

did not specify a bankruptcy court hearing date or other deadline by which it intends to receive

such bankruptcy court approval. Moreover, a review of the bankruptcy court’s docket,

bankruptcy case no. 02-45803, reveals that there is currently no set hearing date. 

Furthermore, this court questions whether the bankruptcy court even retains jurisdiction to

approve such settlement of claims currently before this court on appeal.

Nevertheless, the court denies the instant stipulated request for an extension because it

is in clear contradiction of this court’s order that there would be no further extensions of the

briefing schedule. Appellant has received four extensions, all based on the same alleged

good cause – that it intends to settle its claims with appellee before the bankruptcy court. 

While the parties are commended for their attempts to settle the issues, this appeal cannot

continue indefinitely without compliance with the court-ordered briefing schedule.

Accordingly, appellant’s fifth request for an extension of time to file it opening brief is

DENIED. Appellant shall file and serve its opening brief no later than ten days from the date

of this court’s order. If appellant fails to do so, the appeal shall be dismissed for failure to

prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8001(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 24, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02137-PJH Document 17 Filed 10/24/05 Page 2 of 2