Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07796/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-07796-1/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: FRED AND LINDA KOELLING,

Debtors/Appellants/CrossAppellees.

__________________________________/

QMECT, INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-7796 PJH/

BK Case No. 04-46443 LT

v. ORDER SUSPENDING BRIEFING

ON MERITS AND SETTING 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON 

MOTION TO DISMISS

BURLINGAME CAPITAL PARTNERS, II,

L.P.; ELECTROCHEM FUNDING, LLC,

Defendants/Appellees/

Cross-Appellants.

_________________________________/

This is a cross-appeal of an order of the bankruptcy court received by this court on

December 20, 2006. On March 7, 2007, the clerk’s office for this court received what

appeared to be the bankruptcy record on appeal, and issued a briefing order on the merits

of the cross-appeals on March 15, 2007. However, it has come to the court’s attention via

a motion to dismiss filed by Appellees/Cross-Appellants on March 19, 2007, that the record

transmitted by the bankruptcy court is not complete. That is because the Koellings, who

are proceeding pro se, have allegedly failed to transmit the items that they have designated

to the bankruptcy court, including securing the transcripts, in accordance with Federal Rule

of Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP”) 8006.

Given the instant motion to dismiss and because the record on appeal is incomplete,

briefing on the merits of the cross-appeals appears premature. Accordingly, the briefing

Case 4:06-cv-07796-PJH Document 11 Filed 03/21/07 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

schedule is VACATED. Instead, Appellants/Cross-Appellees Koellings, are ORDERED to

file and serve a response to the motion to dismiss no later than twenty-one days from the

date of this order. In that response, the Koellings should address why the court should not

dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with FRBP 8006. 

Appellees/Cross-Appellants may file a reply, if any, no later than fourteen days after the

Koellings’ response.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2007

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-07796-PJH Document 11 Filed 03/21/07 Page 2 of 2