Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04889/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04889-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 11:101 Bankruptcy

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

1

 The Court has been informed by Heinz Binder, Esq., who is listed as counsel of record for

appellant, that he does not represent appellant.

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re:

MACADAM COMPUTER INC,

Debtor.

___________________________________

TOM SANTOS,

Appellant,

 v.

JANINA M. ELDER, Trustee,

Appellee.

 /

No. C 06-4889 SI

ORDERDENYINGAPPELLEE’SMOTION

TO DISMISS

Trustee Janina Elder, the appellee in this action, has filed a motion to dismiss due to appellant’s

failure to perfect and prosecute the appeal. The motion is scheduled for a hearing on December 1, 2006.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution

without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. 

Appellee contendsthat the appeal should be dismissed because appellant failed to file a statement

of issues or an opening brief. Appellant’s counsel1 J. David Franklin, Esq., has filed a declaration stating

that he has been undergoing serious medical treatment, and that as a result he has been unable to meet

various deadlines. Counsel also states that he never received the briefing schedule for filing the opening

brief, and thus that he was not aware of that deadline. Finally, counsel states that he will file both a

Case 3:06-cv-04889-SI Document 8 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 has appealed a July 19, 2006Order Authorizing Trustee to Compromise Controversy

with Apple Computer, Inc. According to the parties’ papers, appellant Tom Santos is the 90%

shareholder of debtor Macadam Computer, Inc. Macadam Computer, Inc. brought a state court action

against Apple Computer Inc.. The July 19, 2006 order authorizes the bankruptcy trustee to “take such

steps as are required to give effect to the compromise” of that state court action. 

3

 The reason for this is unclear. Appellant simply states that the bankruptcy court has not acted

on the motion, while appellee asserts that the motion was never noticed for a hearing and that it was

“effectively abandoned.”

4

 The Court notes that appellant’s opposition was due on November 17, 2006, and was not

received until November 21, 2006. Further, it does not appear that the opposition papers were filed with

the Court, as they do not appear on the Court’s docket. Appellant is directed to immediately e-file the

opposition papers.

2

statement of issues and an opening brief prior to December 1, 2006. Based upon this representation, and

counsel’s explanation for his failure to prosecute the appeal thus far, the Court finds there is no good

cause to dismiss the appeal.

Appellee also contends that the appeal is moot because appellant did not pursue a stay of the

order2 that is the subject of this appeal. It appears that appellant filed a motion for a stay with the

Bankruptcy Court, but that motion has not been adjudicated.3 The parties dispute whether the

compromise settlement has been consummated. However, it appears that the appeal may not be moot

because, according to appellee, this appeal has delayed and/or prevented distributions to creditors.

Based upon the limited record before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that the appeal is moot. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES appellee’s motion to dismiss. (Docket No. 6).

Appellant shall file a statement of issues and opening brief no later than December 1, 2006. The Court

is sympathetic to the concerns raised by appellee, and appellant is cautioned that any further failure to

comply with the Local Rules or briefing schedules shall result in dismissal.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04889-SI Document 8 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 2