Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01417/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01417-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATTI JONES,

Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

JUAN ENRIQUE HURTADO,

Defendant/Appellant.

No. 1:15-cv-01417-DAD

ORDER FOR APPELLANT TO COMPLY 

WITH PROCEDURAL REQUIRMENTS OF 

BANKRUPTCY APPEAL

(Doc. No. 5)

On July 17, 2015, appellant Juan Enrique Hurtado filed a notice of appeal from a May 18, 

2015 judgment by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California in 

Adversary Proceeding No. 11-01102. (Doc. No. 1, p. 2-6.) On September 18, 2015, the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) of the Ninth Circuit issued an order transferring this appeal to 

the district court. (Doc. No. 1, p. 1.) On September 21, 2015, the Clerk of the Court issued an 

opening letter informing appellant that his appeal from the bankruptcy court had been received. 

The opening letter advised appellant that:

[T]he parties’ next step in prosecuting this appeal is compliance 

with F.R.B.P. 8006 and 8007. These rules require the appellant to 

file within 14 days a designation of record, statement of issues on 

appeal and a notice regarding the ordering of transcripts with the 

bankruptcy court.

(Doc. No. 2.)

/////

Case 1:15-cv-01417-DAD Document 6 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 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

2

On September 21, 2015, this court also issued a “Notice to Bankruptcy Court” that the 

district court had received and docketed the notice of appeal in the matter. (Doc. No. 2-1.) To 

date, however, appellant has not filed a designation of record, a statement of issues on appeal, or a 

notice regarding the ordering of transcripts. On January 4, 2016, appellee Patti Jones filed a 

motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of prosecution on the grounds that the procedural 

requirements noted above had not been fulfilled. (Doc. No. 5, 1:23-2:3) Additionally, appellee 

alleges that appellant has failed to notify the bankruptcy court that this appeal has been assigned 

to this court. (Id.)

District courts may impose sanctions, including dismissal, upon an appellant for 

non-prosecution. See Bankr. R. 8001 (an appellant’s failure to take steps required to prosecute an 

appeal, other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal, may be grounds for such action as the 

district court deems appropriate, including dismissal); see also Greco v. Stubenberg, 859 F.2d 

1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Consolidated Freightways, 178 F.2d 756 (9th Cir.

1950); Tucker Products Corp. v. Helms, 171 F.2d 126 (9th Cir. 1948). However, such a dismissal 

constitutes an abuse of discretion if the court fails to consider both (1) alternative measures in lieu 

of dismissal, and (2) whether the conduct giving rise to the dismissal was caused entirely by the 

party’s attorney. See Myers v. Shekter (In Re Hill), 775 F.2d 1385, 1386 (9th Cir. 1985); see also

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (addressing the standards for 

dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).

A district court adequately considers the necessary factors before dismissal if (1) the court 

imposed deadlines for the prosecution of appellant’s appeal and (2) the court, in effect, has also 

warned appellant that if he does not comply with the court’s schedule, his appeal will be subject 

to dismissal. See Greco, 859 F.2d at 1404. These intermediate steps show that the court has

sufficiently considered and exhausted alternatives to dismissal of the appeal. Cf. Henderson v. 

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (district court adequately considered alternatives to 

dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) when it set deadlines for prosecution of the case and warned 

the party that failure to meet deadlines would result in dismissal). Accordingly, this court will 

provide appellant with one last deadline to meet in order to prosecute his appeal and hereby 

Case 1:15-cv-01417-DAD Document 6 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 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

3

specifically advises him that if he does not comply with this deadline his appeal will be 

dismissed.

Based upon the foregoing:

1) Appellant Juan Enrique Hurtado is directed to file with this court, on or before 

February 9, 2016, a designation of record, a statement of issues on appeal, and a notice 

regarding the ordering of transcripts; and

2) Appellant is advised that if he does not comply with this February 9, 2016 deadline his 

appeal will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2016 

 DALE A. DROZD

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01417-DAD Document 6 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 3