Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06782/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06782-1/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)

---

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

1

 The Court finds Appellants’ explanation for their delay in responding to the Order To Show Cause excusable.

An address discrepancy delayed Appellants’ response to the OSC. The Court will therefore consider the substance of

Appellants’ explanation for their failure to prosecute the bankruptcy appeal.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES E SIMS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

F NAMDARAN,

Defendant. /

No. C06-06782 MJJ

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

The Court hereby DISMISSES this bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute pursuant to

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b).

Appellants have failed to comply with scheduling deadlines for this appeal in accord with the

Notice of Briefing entered November 29, 2006. (Docket No. 4.) Pursuant to the Notice of Briefing,

Appellants’ opening brief was due December 29, 2006. Appellants did not file an opening brief, did

not seek an extension of time, and provided no explanation of their failure to prosecute this appeal

for more than nine months. 

On September 27, 2007, the Court ordered Appellants to show good cause by October 3,

2007, why no opening brief had been filed and why the Court should not dismiss the appeal for

failure to prosecute. (Docket No. 6.) Appellants did not respond to the Court’s Order until October

11, 2007. (Docket No. 7.)1

 

Case 3:06-cv-06782-MJJ Document 8 Filed 10/30/07 Page 1 of 2
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

The Court finds that Appellants have not offered an explanation that constitutes good cause

for failure to comply with the briefing schedule set by this Court. Appellants have also not

established that their failure to file a timely opening brief was caused by mistake, inadvertence, or

excusable neglect. To the contrary, Appellants concede that they were fully aware of the deadline

but chose not to expend the resources to pursue the appeal because they were engaged in settlement

negotiations at the time. Pursuit of settlement negotiations alone does not constitute good cause for

failing to file an opening brief or for failing to request a continuance of the briefing schedule. Even

if the parties were engaged in dispositive settlement talks, it was Appellants’ responsibility either to

proceed with the appeal or to timely request a continuance from the Court. Appellant’s only other

proffered argument – that they have “never been reminded” by the Court to file the opening brief –

borders on frivolous and disregards Appellants’ obligations to comply with Court orders and to

diligently prosecute their appeal. Appellant’s conduct constitutes sufficient negligence, indifference,

or both, to warrant dismissal. See In re Beverly Mfg. Corp., 778 F.2d 666, 667 (11th Cir. 1985); In

re Tampa Chain Co., Inc. 835 F.2d 54, 55-56 (2d. Cir. 1987).

 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the appeal failure to prosecute pursuant to FED. R. CIV.

P. 41(b). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06782-MJJ Document 8 Filed 10/30/07 Page 2 of 2