Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00871/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00871-1/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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRITZ WUTHRICH,

Appellant,

v.

AMER SPORTS WINTER & OUTDOOR

COMPANY,

Appellee.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-0871 EMC

ORDER DENYING APPELLEE’S

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF

PROSECUTION

(Docket No. 7)

On November 25, 2014, Appellee Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company (“Amer

Sports”) filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Docket No. 7. The motion revealed that

Appellant Fritz Wuthrich had failed to file an opening brief by June 17, 2014 as required by this

Court’s “Notice of Briefing.” Docket No. 4. This Court issued an order to show cause why this

case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution on January 6, 2015. Docket No. 9. For the

following reasons, Appellee’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

On January 14, 2015, Appellant’s attorney, Ms. Ruth Elin Auerbach, filed a response to the

order to show cause. In this response, she explained her failed to prosecute this action. First, she

argued that she “has not received the electronic filing notices from the Court on this case,” including

the “Notice of Briefing.” Docket No. 10, at 1. Second, perhaps to explain why she did not (on her

own initiative) check the status of this case at any time over the past 11 months, she stated that she

had an “extraordinarily large case load the past six months and therefore, through [her] inadvertence,

this file slipped through the cracks.” Id. at 3.

Case 3:14-cv-00871-EMC Document 11 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 3
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

In deciding whether to dismiss a case for lack of prosecution, a court should consider five

factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage

its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of

cases on the merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779

F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). While a close question, the Court finds that the balance of these

factors weigh against granting Amer Sport’s motion to dismiss. 

Here, the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissing this action. The public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation is not advanced by permitting a party to file an appeal and then

sit back for 11 months, miss two court ordered deadlines, and do absolutely nothing to prosecute the

case. However, the Court finds that the public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits

weighs strongly against dismissal on the facts of this case. To dismiss the case for lack of

prosecution on this facts would be to deprive Mr. Wuthrich of his ability to have a court review the

Bankruptcy Court’s judgment in this case solely because of the unacceptable inadvertence of his

attorney. Unlike traditional litigation, prosecution of this appeal does not require much, if any,

direct involvement by Mr. Wuthrich. As such, it is not even apparent that Mr. Wuthrich is aware his

attorney has failed to prosecute this case. Ms. Auerbach has indicated that she can have an opening

brief filed within 10 days. Accordingly, it is apparent that this case can still be brought to a

resolution on the merits, and the Court finds in these circumstances that it is appropriate to do so.

Further, while the Court finds that Amer Sports has been prejudiced to a degree by Ms.

Auerbach’s failure, the Court finds this prejudice does not warrant dismissal. Because this is an

appeal from the Bankruptcy Court, the parties are limited to the factual record on appeal and

arguments that had been raised before the court below. As a result, this is not a case where Ms.

Auerbach’s inadvertence has jeopardized Amer Sports’ ability to preserve evidence or witness

testimony. 

Finally, the Court must consider the availability of alternative, less drastic sanctions. The

Court believes that a sanction targeted at Ms. Auerbach – as opposed to one that will affect her

client – is more appropriate. Ms. Auerbach’s reasons for why she has failed to prosecute this case

are unacceptable. Regardless of whether or not an attorney receives electronic notices from the

Case 3:14-cv-00871-EMC Document 11 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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 notes that this is not the first time Ms. Auerbach has experienced problems in

properly prosecuting a claim in this District. In Entertainment by J&J, Inc. v. Lee, 126 F. App’x 797

(9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit affirmed a sanctions award imposed against Ms. Auerbach by

Judge Thelton Henderson of this District. The Ninth Circuit stated:

The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sanctions in

this case. It specifically found that Auerbach acted recklessly by not

fully investigating her claim, especially after information discrediting

her primary witness was brought to light. Furthermore, the district

court determined that Auerbach’s true motive was to exact a nuisance

settlement from Lee, evidenced by Auerbach’s statements about

possessing incriminating photographs that later “disappeared” from

the file.

Id. at 798.

3

Court, a reasonable attorney would know that, having filed an appeal before a federal court, a

periodic check of the docket to make sure there were no developments is required. Further, an

“extraordinarily large case load” is no excuse, certainly not for having a case “slip through the

cracks.” Here, Ms. Auerbach’s inadvertence came perilously close to causing the dismissal of her

client’s action. Given the seriousness of Ms. Auerbach’s oversight, the Court finds that a proper,

less drastic sanction in this matter is to refer Ms. Auerbach to this District’s Standing Committee on

Professional Conduct for any investigation or disciplinary action it deems appropriate. N.D. Civ.

L.R. 11-6(a)(1).1 

Accordingly, Amer Sports’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. Appellant shall file the opening

brief in this matter no later than Friday, January 23, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. Further, Ms. Auerbach

shall personally serve a copy of this order on her client by that date.

This order disposes of Docket No. 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00871-EMC Document 11 Filed 01/16/15 Page 3 of 3