Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01285/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01285-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

IN THE MATTER OF 

Donald W. Parrillo 

___________________________________ 

Donald W. Parrillo, 

Appellant, 

v. 

Nancy Reilly and Zane D. Smith, 

Appellees. 

No. CV11-1285-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On June 29, 2011, Appellant Donald W. Parrillo’s appeal of a bankruptcy court 

order was lodged in this Court. Doc. 1. Appellant was informed that he must, within 14 

days, designate the items to be included in the record on appeal and serve a copy on the 

Appellees. Doc. 1 at 2. Appellant was also notified that his failure to comply with 

applicable rules could result in dismissal of his appeal. Doc. 2 at 2. Despite these 

instructions, Appellant did not designate the record on appeal. Appellant was advised of 

this failure in an order dated October 20, 2011, but never responded with a designation of 

the record on appeal. Doc. 3. 

 On January 9, 2012, the Court entered a scheduling order that required Appellant 

to file his opening brief within 14 days. Doc. 4. The order again informed him that his 

Case 2:11-cv-01285-DGC Document 10 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

appeal could be dismissed if he failed to comply with applicable rules and orders. Id. at 

2. Appellant filed a motion seeking to extend the briefing schedule for 180 days, but 

failed to provide any substantiation for his request. As a result, on February 9, 2012, the 

Court denied Appellant’s motion for an extension of time. Doc. 9. Appellant thereafter 

failed to file his opening brief. 

 In response to Appellant’s request for an extension of time, Appellees filed a 

motion to dismiss. Doc. 8. The motion noted that Appellant had failed to designate the 

record on appeal as required by applicable rules. Id. In the Court’s order denying 

Appellant’s request for an extension of time, the Court specifically stated that it would 

rule on the motion to dismiss after briefing was completed. Doc. 9. Appellant failed to 

respond to the motion to dismiss. 

 Appellant clearly has been warned that his failure to comply with applicable rules 

and Court orders could result in dismissal of his appeal. See Doc. 1 at 11; Doc. 4 at 2. 

He nonetheless has failed to designate his record on appeal, file an opening brief, or 

respond to the motion to dismiss. This appeal has been pending for almost one year with 

virtually no activity because of Appellant’s repeated failures to satisfy his obligations. 

 The Ninth Circuit has developed a five part test for determining whether a 

dismissal sanction is just: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of the 

litigation; (2) the Court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party 

seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits; and 

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. Valley Engineers, Inc. v. Electric 

Engineering Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998). The first three factors favor 

dismissal of this appeal: the appeal cannot be resolved expeditiously when Appellant 

fails to comply with applicable rules, the Court cannot effectively manage its docket in 

such a situation, and the resulting delay prejudices Appellees. The fourth factor weighs 

against dismissal. In considering the fifth factor, the Court has contemplated less drastic 

sanctions, but because Appellant repeatedly has demonstrated his failure to comply with 

rules and orders, the Court concludes that dismissal is the only appropriate sanction. 

Case 2:11-cv-01285-DGC Document 10 Filed 05/09/12 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

IT IS ORDERED that Appellees’ motion to dismiss appeal (Doc. 8) is granted. 

The Clerk shall terminate this matter. 

 Dated this 9th day of May, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01285-DGC Document 10 Filed 05/09/12 Page 3 of 3