Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00451/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00451-1/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

07CV451

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE JAMES KEENAN, d.b.a. DATA

PROPERTY SERVICES,

Debtor. 

JAMES W. KEENAN and JUDY M.

KEENAN, 

Plaintiffs/Appellants,

v.

ROSS M. PYLE; PROCOPIO, CORY,

HARGREAVES & SAVITCH, a business

entity; JEFFREY ISAACS, an individual;

and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants/Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv451-L(RBB)

Bankruptcy No. 96-00871-B11

Adversary Proc. No. 06-90341-B11

ORDER DENYING APPELLANTS’

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME

On August 3, 2007, Appellant James W. Keenan, proceeding pro se in this bankruptcy

appeal, filed an ex parte application seeking an extension of time to file a reply brief. Appellees

oppose the request. For the reasons which follow, the application is DENIED. 

Appellants James W. and Judy Keenan are proceeding pro se. Although each pro se

litigant may appear on his or her own behalf, “the privilege is personal” to each one of them. 

C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987). In this regard, Civil

Local Rule 83.11(a) of this District provides in pertinent part: “Any person who is appearing . . .

pro se must appear personally for such purpose and may not delegate that duty to any other

Case 3:07-cv-00451-L-RBB Document 31 Filed 08/15/07 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 07CV451

person, including husband or wife, or another party on the same side appearing without an

attorney.” The ex parte application, signed only by Mr. Keenan is therefore not accepted on

behalf of Mrs. Keenan. 

This is Appellants’ fourth request for an extension of time in this appeal. Despite three

extensions of time to file record on appeal and extensive prior experience with bankruptcy

litigation and appeals (see Notice of Related Cases, filed 3/22/07), Appellants did not timely file

it. Their pro se status is no excuse. Pro se litigants are bound by the orders of this court, rules

of court and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Civ. Loc. R. 83.11(a). “Failure to comply

therewith may be ground for dismissal . . ..” Id. 

Pursuant to this court’s May 16, 2007 order, their reply brief was due on July 30, 2007. 

Appellants request a 30-day extension of time because Appellees’ opposition brief, filed July 16,

2007, was stricken on July 17, 2007. Pursuant to the order of the court, Appellants were granted

leave to re-file their brief on July 25, 2007. Although Appellants were served with the

opposition brief before it was stricken, they did not prepare a reply, apparently did not contact

Appellants’ counsel to confer, and did not inquire with the court. Instead, they went on vacation. 

Requests for enlargement of time may be granted for excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P.

6(b). Pioneer Investment Services Company v. Brunswick Associates established a balancing test

to determine whether an untimely filing is due to excusable neglect: 

(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its

potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including

whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the

moving party’s conduct was in good faith.

Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. 380,

395 (1993). 

Appellees assert they are being prejudiced because the closing of a more than a decadeold bankruptcy case has been repeatedly delayed by Appellants, including prior delay in this

appeal. The current delay of thirty days would be additional to a 30-day extension of the

briefing schedule Appellants had obtained earlier in this appeal. The reason for the current delay

was entirely in Appellants’ control and their conduct does not appear to be in good faith. They

Case 3:07-cv-00451-L-RBB Document 31 Filed 08/15/07 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 07CV451

neither conferred with opposing counsel regarding the status of their opposition brief nor

contacted the court. They waited until after the due date was past to request an extension of

time.

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds the neglect was not excusable. Accordingly,

Appellant James M. Keenan’s Ex Parte Application for an Extension of Time to File Appellants’

Reply Brief is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 14, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO:

HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL/PARTIES

Case 3:07-cv-00451-L-RBB Document 31 Filed 08/15/07 Page 3 of 3