Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-06134/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-06134-0/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

Case Nos. 5:15-cv-06134-RMW; 5:15-cv-06134-RMW; 5:16-cv-00165-RMW; 5:16-cv-00166-RMW

ORDER CONSOLIDATING APPEALS AND GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DESIGNATIONS OF 

RECORD ON APPEAL

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JACQUELINE C. MELCHER,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN W. RICHARDSON, Trustee in 

Bankruptcy

Appellee.

JACQUELINE C. MELCHER,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN W. RICHARDSON, Trustee in 

Bankruptcy

Appellee.

JACQUELINE C. MELCHER,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN W. RICHARDSON, Trustee in 

Bankruptcy

Appellee.

CAPTION CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

Case No. 5:15-cv-06134-RMW

Bankr. Case No. 01-53251

ORDER CONSOLIDATING APPEALS 

AND GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE DESIGNATIONS OF 

RECORD ON APPEAL

Case No. 5:15-cv-06135-RMW

Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 4

Case No. 5:16-cv-00165-RMW

Re: Dkt. No. 4

Case 5:15-cv-06134-RMW Document 4 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 5
2

Case Nos. 5:15-cv-06134-RMW; 5:15-cv-06134-RMW; 5:16-cv-00165-RMW; 5:16-cv-00166-RMW

ORDER CONSOLIDATING APPEALS AND GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DESIGNATIONS OF 

RECORD ON APPEAL

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

JACQUELINE C. MELCHER,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN W. RICHARDSON, Trustee in 

Bankruptcy

Appellee.

Case No. 5:16-cv-00166-RMW

Re: Dkt. No. 3

In this bankruptcy appeal, pro se appellant Jacqueline C. Melcher has filed motions to 

consolidate four separate appeals from orders of the bankruptcy court and to extend the deadline 

for filing designations of the record on appeal. For the reasons set forth below, appellant’s motion 

to consolidate is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and appellant’s motion for an 

extension of time is GRANTED.

I. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

On December 18, 2015, appellant filed a notice of appeal in the bankruptcy court aimed at 

four separate bankruptcy court orders. Bankr. Dkt. No. 3907. Appellant’s notice resulted in four 

separate appeals being opened in this court, summarized in the table below:

Dist. Ct. Case No. Bankr. Ct. Dkt. No. Bankr. Ct. Order Title

15-cv-6134-RMW 3896 Order Denying Request for Leave to File 

Objection to Ch. 7 Trustee’s Request for 

Retroactive Authority for Payment of 

Miscellaneous Ch. 7 Administrative Expenses

15-cv-6135-RMW 3898 Order Authorizing Payment of Chapter 7 

Administrative Expenses

16-cv-0165-RMW 3900 Order Denying Request for Leave to File 

Objection to Application for Compensation and 

Expense Reimbursement of Trustee’s 

Professionals

16-cv-0166-RMW 3903 Order Approving Fifth Interim Application For 

Compensation And Expense Reimbursement

At the time appellant filed her notice of appeal on December 18, 2015, appellant attempted to file 

with this court a motion to consolidate her appeals of the above orders. See Case No. 16-cv-0165 

Dkt. No. 4 at 2. At the time, however, the bankruptcy court had not yet transferred these appeals to 

the district court, so no case numbers had been assigned, and the consolidation motion was not 

placed in the district court’s docket.

Case 5:15-cv-06134-RMW Document 4 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 5
3

Case Nos. 5:15-cv-06134-RMW; 5:15-cv-06134-RMW; 5:16-cv-00165-RMW; 5:16-cv-00166-RMW

ORDER CONSOLIDATING APPEALS AND GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DESIGNATIONS OF 

RECORD ON APPEAL

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

On January 15, 2016, appellant filed a “Renewed Corrected Motion Requesting the Court 

to Combine the Related Appeals from the Bankruptcy Court’s Orders Approving the Trustee and 

His Attorney’s Fees and Expenses and Denying the Debtor’s Right to Object” in two of the 

appeals above. Case No. 16-cv-0165, Dkt. No. 4; Case No. 16-cv-0166, Dkt. No. 3. It is unclear 

why appellant only filed her motion to consolidate in the dockets of two of the four cases, but the 

court interprets it as a motion to consolidate all four appeals. Appellant argues:

The appeals are both related to the Trustee and his attorneys fees 

and expenses that were automatically approved without a hearing, 

without full notice to the Appellant and in violation of the previous 

Bankruptcy Court orders allowing the Debtor the right to object to 

the Trustee’s Applications for fees and expenses at the end of the 

Bankruptcy Case. 

Combining the appeals would save the Court time and expense.

Id. at 2.

On January 22, 2016, appellee John W. Richardson, the bankruptcy trustee, filed a 

response partially opposing appellant’s motion to consolidate.1 Appellee argues that the four 

appeals should be consolidated into two appeals. Appellee suggests that the first consolidated 

appeal should cover: (a) the bankruptcy court’s order retroactively authorizing the trustee to pay 

certain Chapter 7 administrative expenses, Bankr. Dkt. No. 3898; and (b) the bankruptcy court’s 

order denying appellant leave to file objections to the trustee’s request for retroactive 

authorization, Bankr. Dkt. No. 3896. Appellee suggests that the second consolidated appeal should 

cover: (a) the bankruptcy court’s order approving compensation and expense reimbursement to 

two of the trustee’s professionals, Bankr. Dkt. No. 3903; and (b) the bankruptcy court’s order 

denying appellant leave to file objections to the trustee’s request for said compensation and 

reimbursement, Bankr. Dkt. No. 3900.

To understand appellee’s suggestion for consolidation, it is helpful to note appellant’s 

litigation history. Because the bankruptcy court found that Ms. Melcher’s “multiple, largely 

 

1 Case No. 15-cv-6134, Dkt. No. 3; Case No. 15-cv-6135, Dkt. No. 5; Case No. 16-cv-0165, Dkt. 

No. 6; Case No. 16-cv-0166, Dkt. No. 4.

Case 5:15-cv-06134-RMW Document 4 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 5
4

Case Nos. 5:15-cv-06134-RMW; 5:15-cv-06134-RMW; 5:16-cv-00165-RMW; 5:16-cv-00166-RMW

ORDER CONSOLIDATING APPEALS AND GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DESIGNATIONS OF 

RECORD ON APPEAL

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

duplicative filings are an abuse of the bankruptcy process,” the bankruptcy court issued a prefiling order requiring Ms. Melcher to obtain court permission to file further pleadings. See Bankr. 

Dkt. No. 3925 (Second Amended Order Requiring Debtor to Obtain Court Permission to File 

Further Pleadings) at 4. See also In re Melcher, No. BAP NC-13-1168, 2014 WL 1410235, at *11 

(B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 11, 2014). While appellee does not explicitly explain as much, it appears that 

bankruptcy court order number 3896 denied appellant leave to object to a request for certain 

administrative expenses, and order number 3898 granted authority for payment of those expenses. 

Moreover, it appears that bankruptcy court order 3900 denied appellant leave to object to another 

set of expenses, and order number 3903 approved those expenses.

Accordingly, this court agrees with appellee that case numbers 15-cv-6134 and 15-cv-6135 

should be consolidated into a single case, and case numbers 16-cv-0165 and 16-cv-0166 should be 

consolidated into their own case.

II. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

On January 6, 2016, appellant filed an application for an order extending the deadline for 

filing designations of the record on appeal. Case No. 15-cv-6135, Dkt. Nos. 3-4.2 Appellant 

argues, among other things, that she has had to move five times since November 13, 2015 and that 

she has needed additional time to respond to the trustee’s arguments in yet another appeal from a 

bankruptcy court order, Dist. Ct. Case No. 14-cv-5586. 

Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009(a)(1)(B), an appellant must file and 

serve designations of the record on appeal within 14 days after the appellant’s notice of appeal 

becomes effective. In this case, appellant filed her notice of appeal on December 18, 2015. The 

14-day period thus fell on a federal holiday, January 1, 2016, which meant that appellant’s 

designations were due January 4, 2016, the first working day following the holiday. See Fed. R. 

Bankr. P. 9006(a)(1). Appellant did not file her motion for an extension of time, however, until 

 

2 Again, it is unclear why appellant did not file her motion for an extension of time in the dockets 

of the other three appeals listed above, but the court interprets the motion as directed to all of the 

appeals because the face of the motion lists multiple case numbers.

Case 5:15-cv-06134-RMW Document 4 Filed 02/10/16 Page 4 of 5
5

Case Nos. 5:15-cv-06134-RMW; 5:15-cv-06134-RMW; 5:16-cv-00165-RMW; 5:16-cv-00166-RMW

ORDER CONSOLIDATING APPEALS AND GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DESIGNATIONS OF 

RECORD ON APPEAL

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

January 6, 2016, two days after the deadline to file designations. The court may grant an extension 

of time “on motion made after the expiration of the specified period” if the moving party shows 

that “the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(1).

Appellant does not explicitly argue that her delay in filing a motion for an extension of 

time was due to excusable neglect. However, appellant’s motion notes that she had requested 

consolidation of multiple appeals. Case No. 15-cv-6135, Dkt. No. 3 at 3. Because the necessary 

designations of the record in each case might change depending on whether the appeals were 

consolidated, the court finds that appellant’s delay in seeking an extension of time was excusable 

in this case. The court notes that appellee has filed no objection to the request for an extension of 

time. Accordingly, appellant’s designations of record in the two consolidated appeals are due on 

February 18, 2016.

III. ORDER

For the reasons explained above, the court consolidates appellant’s four appeals into two 

cases as follows:

Case numbers 15-cv-6134 and 15-cv-6135 are hereby consolidated into case number 

15-cv-6134. The clerk shall close the file in case number 15-cv-6135.

Case numbers 16-cv-0165 and 16-cv-0166 are hereby consolidated into case number 

16-cv-0165. The clerk shall close the file in case number 16-cv-0166.

Appellant’s designations of the record in the two consolidated appeals are due on February 

18, 2016. The briefing schedules in the above appeals shall follow Bankruptcy Local Rule 8010-1.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2016

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-06134-RMW Document 4 Filed 02/10/16 Page 5 of 5