Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01417/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01417-2/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)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATTI JONES,

Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

JUAN ENRIQUE HURTADO,

Defendant/Appellant.

No. 1:15-cv-01417-DAD

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME 

FOR APPELLANT TO FILE OPENING 

BRIEF

(Doc. No. 17)

On July 6, 2016, appellant Juan Enrique Hurtado filed an application for a nine day

extension of time, from July 6, 2016 to July 15, 2016, to file his opening brief on appeal. In 

support of this request, appellant’s counsel Brian Moquin filed a declaration signed under penalty 

of perjury stating that he unexpectedly was obligated by contract to work overseas in India the 

week of July 4-8, 2016, making completion of the opening brief extremely difficult. (Doc. No. 

17-1.) Attorney Moquin also declared that if the requested extension of time is granted 

“[a]ppellant will not request any further extensions of time during the pendency of this appeal.” 

(Id. at 2-3.)

On July 7, 2016, appellee Patti Jones filed an opposition to appellant’s request for an 

extension of time. (Doc. No. 18.) Appellee’s counsel argues that appellant has a history of 

missing deadlines, that appellee scheduled a business trip around the court’s scheduling order and 

that appellant’s proposed briefing schedule would conflict with this trip. (Id.) Bona submits that 

Case 1:15-cv-01417-DAD Document 19 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 2
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 is delaying the proceedings to buy time to dissipate his assets or otherwise make it 

difficult for appellee Jones to enforce her judgment. (Id.)

The court has considered the application for an extension of time to file appellant’s 

opening brief, the opposition thereto, and the parties’ exhibits. Appellee’s opposition to the 

request is not without merit. Nonetheless, because appellant seeks merely a nine-day extension of 

time to file his opening brief on appeal, the court finds the request to be not unreasonable under 

the circumstances described by appellant’s counsel in his declaration. Accordingly, the court will 

grant appellant’s request and extend the deadline for the filing of the opening brief from July 6, 

2016 to July 15, 2016. However, appellant is forewarned that that the court will not grant 

appellant any further extensions of time in this regard. Moreover, any failure by appellant to 

comply with filing deadlines may result in the imposition of sanctions including the possible 

dismissal of his appeal. If, in light of this order, appellee’s counsel wishes to seek an extension of 

time to file appellee’s brief on appeal, counsel may do so.

For the reasons set forth above,

1) Appellant’s application for an extension of time to file his opening brief (Doc. No. 17) 

is granted;

2) Appellant’s opening brief is now to be filed with this court on or before July 15, 2016;

3) Appellee’s brief shall be filed with this court within thirty (30) days after service of 

appellant’s opening brief1;

4) Appellant may file a reply brief within fourteen (14) days after service of appellee’s 

brief; and

5) The court will set the matter for oral argument, if appropriate, after the matter has been 

fully briefed by the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Or such later date as set by the court in the event appellee seeks an extension of time.

Case 1:15-cv-01417-DAD Document 19 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 2