Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04672/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04672-1/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

IN RE 600 ALABAMA Case No: C 09-4672 SBA 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

 

Appellants filed their bankruptcy appeal with the Court on October 1, 2009. The Court 

established a briefing schedule whereby Appellants’ opening brief was due within thirty days 

after perfection of the record, pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8006 and 

8007. (Docket 2.) Appellants never filed an opening brief. On June 25, 2010, the Court issued 

an order to show cause directing Appellants to demonstrate why their appeal should not be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Court explicitly warned Appellants that their appeal 

would be dismissed if they failed to respond to the order. Appellants failed to respond to the 

Court’s order to show cause. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the Court to dismiss an action where 

plaintiff has failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any order of the 

court. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). This power derives from the 

district court’s inherent authority to control its docket. Id. In determining whether to dismiss 

an action for failure to prosecute, the district court may consider: (1) the public’s interest in 

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s needs to manage its docket; (3) the risk of 

prejudice to defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 

(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 

Case 4:09-cv-04672-SBA Document 4 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)); 

Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Although a discussion of these factors is preferable, it is not an explicit requirement. Ferdick, 

963 F.2d at 1262. 

In the instant case, the Court recognizes the preference for resolving matters on the 

merits. Nonetheless, the remaining factors weigh in favor of dismissing the appeal. The 

interests expressed in the first two factors are directly contravened by Appellants’ failure to file 

their opening brief. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (“It is 

incumbent upon the Court to manage its docket without being subject to routine noncompliance 

of litigants”); Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognizing 

court’s need to control its own docket); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th 

Cir. 1992) (non-compliance with a court’s order diverts “valuable time that [the court] could 

have devoted to other major and serious criminal and civil cases on its docket”). 

 The next factor, the risk of prejudice to the opposing party, is related to the strength of 

the Appellants’ excuse for the default. See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 991. Here, Appellants have 

offered no “excuse” for their conduct nor is any apparent from the record. 

 Finally, the Court has considered less drastic alternatives to dismissal. As noted, the 

Court afforded Appellants an opportunity to be heard prior to dismissing the action. “[A] 

district court’s warning to a party that failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal 

can satisfy the ‘consideration of [less drastic sanctions]’ requirement.” Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1262. Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT that the instant bankruptcy appeal is DISMISSED 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Clerk shall close the 

file and terminate any pending matters. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 1, 2010 _______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-04672-SBA Document 4 Filed 07/02/10 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

IN RE 600 ALABAMA et al, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

IN RE 600 ALABAMA et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV09-04672 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 

Court, Northern District of California. 

That on July 2, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office. 

 U.S. Bankruptcy Court, No. District of CA (San Francisco) 

Clerk’s Office 

235 Pine Street 

P.O. Box 7341 

San Francisco, CA 94120-7341 

Dennis Montali 

US Bankruptcy Court 

Northern District of California 

P. O. Box 7341 

235 Pine Street 

San Francisco, CA 94120-7341 

Dated: July 2, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:09-cv-04672-SBA Document 4 Filed 07/02/10 Page 3 of 3