Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05781/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05781-2/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANITA B. CARR,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTHA J. BRONITSKY,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05781-WHO 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 

AND REQUIRING FILING OF 

OPENING BRIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 18

Plaintiff Anita Carr has appealed from the dismissal of her Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition

after a hearing before the Hon. William J. Lafferty, U. S. Bankruptcy Judge. Bankruptcy Case # 

15-42212, Dkt. Nos. 50, 74. The Chapter 13 Trustee had recommended that the case be dismissed 

because Carr’s Amended Chapter 13 Plan was not confirmable, citing six reasons: (i) Carr failed 

to commit her income to the Plan for the duration of the Plan; (ii) the Plan unfairly discriminated 

between unsecured debts; (iii) the Plan failed to provide for the value unsecured creditors would 

receive in the estate in a hypothetical Chapter 7 plan; (iv) Carr failed to provide sufficient 

information to value her pending lawsuits; (v) Carr had not served notice of the plan appropriately;

and (vi) Carr unreasonably delayed in submitting her Plan. Id., Dkt. No. 45. At the bankruptcy 

hearing, Judge Lafferty noted those deficiencies in the Plan and explained that they required 

dismissal of Carr’s case. Dkt. No. 70 (Transcript). 

Judge Lafferty also advised Carr that if the issue “really at stake” was the dispute about her 

mortgage, who was the holder of that mortgage, and who was entitled to foreclose on her property, 

those issues would better be resolved in District Court because the bankruptcy court was not the 

Case 3:15-cv-05781-WHO Document 19 Filed 09/12/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

forum for resolving that dispute. Id. In an order following the hearing, Judge Lafferty sustained 

the Trustee’s objections and dismissed the case. Id., Dkt. No. 50. The sole issue on this appeal is 

whether Judge Lafferty appropriately dismissed the bankruptcy case based on the Trustee’s 

objections. 

Carr’s opening brief on appeal was initially due on June 16, 2016. I gave her an extension 

of time to file until July 18, 2016. Dkt. No. 15. I warned her that failure to file her opening brief 

could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Id. In July, she filed a second motion seeking an 

additional extension of time in light of her medical conditions. Dkt. No. 16. I granted that 

request, and gave her until September 1, 2016 to file her brief. Dkt. No. 17. I cautioned her that 

no further extensions of time would be granted absent “extraordinary circumstances,” and that her

appeal would be dismissed for failure to prosecute if she did not file her opening brief. Id. 

On September 7, 2016, Carr filed a motion seeking to stay this appeal pending resolution 

of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit of an order dismissing a prior case in the Northern District of 

California. Dkt. No. 18 (“Stay Motion”). In the prior case, Carr challenged the ability of U.S.

Bank National Association to foreclose on her home, along with a number of other claims. Carr v. 

U.S. Bank National Association, 16-cv-01690-VC. The Hon. Vince Chhabria dismissed her 

claims as barred by the relevant statutes of limitations, and Carr filed an appeal that has not yet 

been briefed. Dkt. Nos. 38, 41. Carr argues that this bankruptcy appeal should be stayed pending 

the resolution of Judge Chhabria’s dismissal and her appeal of that case because the determination 

of whether there was a valid mortgage deed and whether there was a fraudulent foreclosure on her 

home in 2008 – the merits issues she hopes to resolve in the case before Judge Chhabria – could 

impact this bankruptcy appeal. Stay Motion at 1-2.1

I disagree. The validity of the mortgage and propriety of the foreclosure Carr seeks to 

challenge in Judge Chhabria’s case are not directly relevant to the narrow issue in this case: 

whether the Bankruptcy Court appropriately dismissed her case because of numerous problems 

 

1 Carr also argues a state court case which is, or will soon be, on appeal could also impact whether 

there was a valid mortgage and foreclosure. Stay Mot. at 1-2. The resolution of that case, 

however, is not relevant to and will not impede the resolution of this narrow bankruptcy appeal for 

the same reasons as discussed with respect to the Judge Chhabria case.

Case 3:15-cv-05781-WHO Document 19 Filed 09/12/16 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

Northern District of California

with her Chapter 13 Plan. Carr’s motion for a stay is DENIED.

If Carr intends to prosecute this appeal, she must file her Opening Brief on appeal on or 

before October 7, 2016. Failure to do so will result in a dismissal for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016 ____________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05781-WHO Document 19 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 3