Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-06031/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-06031-2/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)

---

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 DONALD L. CLAWSON, II, and DEBRA

A. CLAWSON,

Debtors.

______________________________________/

DONALD L. CLAWSON, II, and DEBRA

A. CLAWSON,

Plaintiffs/Appellees, No. C 09-4993 PJH/09-6031 PJH

Bankr. Case No. 08-45900

Adv. Case No. 09-4045

v.

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER

TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING

APPELLEE’S MOTION TO

EXPAND RECORD; ORDER RE:

BRIEFING

INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK FSB; QUALITY

LOAN SERVICE CORP.,

Defendants/Appellants.

____________________________________/

On March 19, 2010, the court issued an order to show cause regarding the records

in the above related bankruptcy appeals filed on October 20, 2009, and December 28,

2009. In the order to show cause, the court noted that the records in both cases should

have been designated and perfected, and should have been submitted to the court, but had

not. Because the court had not received any explanation regarding the status of the

records, it was not clear to the court whether the parties had complied with Federal Rule of

Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP”) 8006 in perfecting the records before the bankruptcy court. 

Case 4:09-cv-06031-PJH Document 16 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 3
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

Based on appellant’s March 25, 2010 declaration and the bankruptcy court’s

transmittal of the records to this court on March 30, 2010, it appears that the delay resulted

from the bankruptcy court’s failure to retain and/or promptly submit the records and not

from a failure of the appellants to properly designate the record. Accordingly, the order to

show cause is DISCHARGED.

In response to the order to show cause, appellees submitted a “motion to correct

omission in the record.” That motion, however, is more properly considered a motion to

expand the record based on the appellees’ failure to file a timely designation of record

before the bankruptcy court. Appellees seek to have the record supplemented with exhibits

from a September 16, 2009 evidentiary hearing before the bankruptcy court, and attempt to

frame their motion as a novel issue for this court. The issue, however, is not novel, and is

in fact covered by FRBP 8006. That rule required appellees to submit their request to

“supplement” the record months ago in the proceedings before the bankruptcy court. 

Appellants properly designated the record on appeal in 09-4993 PJH, the appeal to

which the exhibits are relevant, in a designation filed with the bankruptcy court on October

29, 2009. FRBP 8006 provides that “[w]ithin 14 days after the service of the appellant’s

statement the appellee may file and serve on the appellant a designation of additional items

to be included in the record on appeal.” As reflected by the bankruptcy court’s docket,

which, in addition to FRBP 8006, provided appellees with notice of the designation

deadline, appellee’s designation was due November 9, 2009. Appellees however failed to

designate any additional items on appeal. Accordingly, the court must now determine

whether or not expansion of the record is warranted given this failure to comply with the

governing rule.

Appellees seem to recognize that they have failed to comply with governing

deadlines, and explain that their prior counsel was not an appellate specialist. This is no

excuse though for the five-month delay. However, because the court concludes that the

exhibits that appellees failed to designate as part of the record are essential for the court’s

Case 4:09-cv-06031-PJH Document 16 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

resolution of the appeals, the court will GRANT appellees’ request to supplement the

record with the exhibits. See, e.g., In re Beck-Rumbaugh Assocs., Inc., 80 B.R. 306, 307

(E.D. Pa. 1987). Appellees are ORDERED to submit two copies of the exhibits to this

court no later than April 21, 2010. Appellees are advised that the two copies should be

submitted to this court in a usable format, including but not limited to bound, tabbed, and

with an index. One copy should be labeled “chambers copies.”

Additionally, in accordance with the court’s January 8, 2010 order for consolidated

briefing, appellants are ORDERED to file and serve one consolidated opening brief not

exceeding 25 pages in length no later than May 19, 2010. Appellees must file and serve

one consolidated opposition brief not exceeding 25 pages in length no later than June 14,

2010. Appellants may file and serve one consolidated reply brief not exceeding 15 pages

in length no later than June 18, 2010. The matter will be decided on the papers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-06031-PJH Document 16 Filed 04/15/10 Page 3 of 3