Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01382/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01382-0/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

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD R. LEVITT,

Appellant,

v.

BETH MAXWELL STRATTON,

Appellee.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-F-06-1382 AWI

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

PROSECUTION

Appellant initiated an appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court on October 4, 2006.

Doc. 1. The record on appeal was thereafter completed. The district court clerk’s office sent out

a briefing schedule on November 3, 2006. Doc. 7. That schedule follows the time limits set out

by Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009 for the filing of appeals briefs:

(1) The appellant shall serve and file a brief within 15 days after entry of the appeal on

the docket pursuant to Rule 8007.

(2) The appellee shall serve and file a brief within 15 days after service of the brief of

appellant. If the appellee has filed a cross appeal, the brief of the appellee shall contain

the issues and argument pertinent to the cross appeal, denominated as such, and the

response to the brief of the appellant.

(3) The appellant may serve and file a reply brief within 10 days after service of the brief

of the appellee, and if the appellee has cross-appealed, the appellee may file and serve a

reply brief to the response of the appellant to the issues presented in the cross appeal

within 10 days after service of the reply brief of the appellant.

The appellant has not yet filed any brief. “A delay [in filing] of close to three months is

unreasonable” and may constitute grounds for dismissal of appeal. In re A & J Elastic Mills, Inc.,

Case 1:06-cv-01382-AWI Document 8 Filed 03/13/07 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

34 B.R. 977, 979 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). Dismissal is especially warranted where there is no filing

even after the court specifically directs appellant to respond. West v. Falconer, 17 B.R. 929, 931

(S.D. Ill. 1982)

In general “justice is better served when controversies are decided on their merits rather

than procedural technicalities.” Sierra Switchboard Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 789 F.2d

705, 707 (9th Cir. 1986), quoting In re Bienert, 48 B.R. 326, 327 (N.D. Iowa 1985). While

options should be considered, in “‘egregious circumstances’ a court may dismiss a case for

non-compliance with procedural rules without explicit consideration of alternative sanctions.” In

re Donovan, 871 F.2d 807, 808-9 (9th Cir. 1989), quoting Malone v. United States Postal

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 132 (9th Cir. 1987). “The district court has the inherent power sua sponte

to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.” Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir.

1986), citations omitted. 

Appellant is hereby ORDERED to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute within twenty (20) days of the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01382-AWI Document 8 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 2