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

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 DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

(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 of the Ninth Circuit issued an order transferring this appeal to the 

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

Case 1:15-cv-01417-DAD Document 12 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 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

2

(Doc. No. 2.)

Nonetheless, appellant did not file a designation of record, a statement of issues on appeal, 

or a notice regarding the ordering of transcripts as required. Consequently, on January 4, 2016, 

appellee Patti Jones filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of prosecution on the grounds 

that these procedural requirements had not been fulfilled. (Doc. No. 5, 1:23-2:3.) On January 13, 

2016, this court issued an order directing appellant to file with the 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. (Doc. No. 6.) The court warned the failure to comply with the order would result 

in dismissal of appellant’s appeal. (Id.) On February 10, 2016, appellant did in fact file a 

designation of record on appeal (Doc. No. 9), a statement of issues on appeal (Doc. No. 8), and a 

notice regarding transcripts on appeal (Doc. No. 7).1 

On February 16, 2016, appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal appeared on this court’s 

calendar for hearing, but neither party appeared when the matter was called. Under these 

circumstances, and since the basis for appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of 

prosecution has been rendered moot point, the motion to dismiss the appeal will be denied.

For the reasons set forth above, appellee Patti Jones’ motion to dismiss for lack of 

prosecution (Doc. No. 5) is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

The court notes that appellant’s filings with this court were one day late under the terms of the 

court’s order. However, because the delay was minor and in light of appellant’s explanation that 

a ministerial mishap was the cause (Doc. No. 10), the court will excuse the one-day late filing.

Case 1:15-cv-01417-DAD Document 12 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 2