Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03012/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-03012-1/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

ORDER DENYING APPELLEES' MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL—No. C-03-03012 RMW

JAH

E-FILED on 10/28/05

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

In re THE LEISURE CORPORATION,

Debtor.

THE LEISURE CORPORATION,

Appellant,

v.

KENNETH H. PROCHNOW, and LAW

OFFICES OF KENNETH H. PROCHNOW,

Appellees.

No. C-03-03012 RMW

ORDER DENYING APPELLEES' MOTION

TO DISMISS APPEAL

[Re Docket Nos. 33, 45, 46]

Appellees Kenneth Prochnow and the Law Offices of Kenneth H. Prochnow (collectively

"Prochnow") move to dismiss the appeal of appellant Leisure Corporation for failure to prosecute the

appeal as previously ordered by this court. For the reasons given below, the court denies the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

At the hearing on May 13, 2005, the court informed appellant it had until "approximately May 25th

to" file its designation of record on appeal, and if the record was not filed "within fifteen days," the court

would dismiss the appeal on its own motion. Without any contemporaneous explanation or request for

more time, appellant filed its excerpts of the record below on May 31, 2005. Appellant now claims that

Case 5:03-cv-03012-RMW Document 50 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING APPELLEES' MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL—No. C-03-03012 RMW

JAH 2

the record was shipped via overnight courier on May 27, 2005, to the court, and offers copies of the

shipping labels to support this claim. See Appellant's Opp'n, Ex. B. The "Date (OPTIONAL)" field has

indeed been filled in with "5/27/05" on these labels, see id., though that does not prove the packages were

given to the courier early enough on May 27th to ensure delivery by the next day, nor does it explain why

appellant was filing the record at such a late date in the first place. 

II. ANALYSIS

A "dismissal for non-compliance with non-jurisdictional bankruptcy rules" is at the discretion of a

district court. See In re Fitzsimmons, 920 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P.

8001(a) ("appellant's failure to take any step other than timely filing a notice of appeal . . . may" result in

"dismissal of the appeal"). In In re Fitzsimmons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of an

appeal from a bankruptcy court. Id. at 1469-70. The district court based its dismissal of the appeal on the

following: 

(1) [Appellant] did not serve the designation of the record for a month, well after the ten

days provided by Bankruptcy Rule 8006 had expired; (2) [appellant] failed to take prompt

steps to have the reporter's transcripts prepared; (3) [appellant] failed for two months to

amend its "slipshod" designation of the record; (4) [appellant] failed to post the necessary

fees or to contact the reporter until after the dismissal motion was filed; and (5) the

consequences of these delays were not purely procedural but that in a bankruptcy case

creditors can incur substantial prejudice from delay.

Id. at 1470-71. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court's finding that the appellant's delays were in

bad faith. Id. at 1475.

Here, there is insufficient evidence to classify appellant's delays as actions taken in bad faith. While

appellant's counsel has caused multiple delays, missed deadlines, and filed eleventh-hour (and later)

motions, the court will attribute this to sloppiness unless it continues. While Fitzsimmons did not set the

minimum threshold of conduct required for dismissal of an appeal, the court notes that appellant's conduct

here is less egregious than the conduct at issue in Fitzsimmons.

The Ninth Circuit has noted that although "the client must accept the consequences of his or her

attorney's errors," "the sanction of dismissal is a harsh one and . . . its impact will most affect the client, and

not the attorney who in all likelihood caused the offensive conduct." Id. at 1472 n.3. Additionally, while it

troubles the court to let appellant's appeal go forward despite this court's threat of dismissal for any further

Case 5:03-cv-03012-RMW Document 50 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING APPELLEES' MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL—No. C-03-03012 RMW

JAH 3

delay, dismissal seems an unduly harsh sanction to impose, particularly now that appellant's brief has been

filed. Prochnow's motion is therefore reluctantly denied.

III. ORDER

For the reasons given above, the court denies Prochnow's motion to dismiss the Leisure

Corporation's appeal from the bankruptcy court.

DATED: 10/28/05 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-03012-RMW Document 50 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING APPELLEES' MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL—No. C-03-03012 RMW

JAH 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Appellant:

Raymond H. Aver ray@averlaw.com 

Counsel for Appellees:

Pamela M. Ferguson 

Peter Dixon dixon@ldbb.com 

Annie Verdries verdries@lbbslaw.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for

e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 10/28/05 /s/ JH

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:03-cv-03012-RMW Document 50 Filed 10/28/05 Page 4 of 4