Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02566/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02566-2/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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 06-2566 JF

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

(JFLC2)

**E-Filed 3/7/07**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE:

SILICON VALLEY TELECOM AND INTERNET

EXCHANGE LLC,

 Debtor.

Case Number C 06-2566 JF

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR 1

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Creditor Corporate Builders, Inc. (“Corporate”) filed a notice of appeal in this bankruptcy

action on April 12, 2006. However, Corporate failed to timely file a statement of issues on

appeal or an opening brief, and failed to appear for a status conference on July 7, 2006. On July

24, 2006, the Court issued an order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed with

prejudice for failure to prosecute, setting a show cause hearing for August 18, 2006. On August

17, 2006, counsel for Corporate, David Tilem, contacted the Court and represented that he had

not received notice of the prior hearing on July 7, 2006. Mr. Tilem appeared telephonically at the

August 18 hearing. the court set the matter for a further show cause hearing on October 6, 2006. 

Mr. Tilem subsequently moved to withdraw as counsel of record for Corporate, which motion

Case 5:06-cv-02566-JF Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. C 06-2566 JF

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

(JFLC2)

was granted on the record at the hearing on October 6, 2006. 

The Court set a further show cause hearing for November 17, 2006, at which Corporate

was represented by new counsel, Brian Jacobs. The Court set a status conference for December

1, 2006. At the December 1 hearing, at which Mr. Jacobs appeared, the Court set a briefing

schedule requiring Corporate to file its statement of issues by December 11, 2006 and its opening

brief on appeal by January 10, 2007. Mr. Jacobs filed a statement of issues on December 15,

2006, at which time he also filed his notice of appearance as Corporate’s counsel of record. 

However, Corporate failed to file its opening brief by January 10 as directed by the Court. 

Corporate still has not filed its opening brief, nor has it filed a request for extension of time to do

so.

The Court has made every effort to accommodate Corporate in this action. However,

almost one year after filing its notice of appeal, and two months after the time provided by the

Court to do so, Corporate still has not filed its opening brief on appeal. The Court therefore

concludes that it must consider whether to dismiss the appeal with prejudice for failure to

prosecute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962)

(holding that a court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary in order to prevent

undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the

district courts); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that a district

court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court).

In determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with

court orders, a district 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 the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

availability of less drastic sanctions. See In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (failure

to prosecute); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (failure to comply with court orders).

These factors favor dismissal in the present case. Corporate’s inaction is contrary to the

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of this litigation and hinders the Court’s ability to

manage its docket. Prejudice to the Debtor may be presumed from Corporate’s unreasonable

Case 5:06-cv-02566-JF Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Case No. C 06-2566 JF

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

(JFLC2)

delay in filing its opening brief. The Court vacated a prior order to show cause why the case

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, continued the case management conferences in

this matter numerous times, and set a generous briefing schedule, all in an effort to accommodate

Corporate. Corporate nonetheless has failed to meet this briefing schedule and has fail to provide

any explanation for its failure. Under these circumstances, the public policy favoring resolution

of disputes on their merits does not outweigh Corporate’s failure to prosecute this appeal.

ORDER 

The instant appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

DATED: 3/7/07 

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02566-JF Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 3 of 4
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

 Although Mr. Jacobs’ email address appears on the Court’s docket, his email address 2

does not appear on the service list automatically generated by the Court’s Electronic Case Filing

System. The Court is serving Mr. Jacobs with a hard copy of this Order, and advises him to

inquire with the Court’s Electronic Case Filing help desk why his email address does not appear

on the Court’s service list. 

4

Case No. C 06-2566 JF

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

(JFLC2)

Copies of this Order were served on:

Brian Joseph Jacobs2

467 South Arnaz Drive, Suite 319A

Los Angeles, CA 90048

Marc L. Pinckney mpinckney@campeaulaw.com

Nanette Dumas

Office of the U.S. Trustee

280 S 1st St. #268

San Jose, CA 95113-0002

Daniel J. Mash

Mash & Bahrick

1048 Lincoln Avenue

San Jose, CA 95125

Case 5:06-cv-02566-JF Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 4 of 4