Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03880/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03880-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eagle Vista Equities LLC
Appellee
Eve Sutton
Appellant

Document Text:

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

SUTTON,

Appellant,

v.

EAGLE VISTA EQUITIES LLC,

Appellee.

Case No. 19-cv-03880-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING APPELLANT’S 

REQUEST THAT DOCUMENT BE 

ACCEPTED DESPITE LATE FILING,

AND GRANTING APPELLANT’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Docket Nos. 7, 11

I. INTRODUCTION

Eve Sutton filed suit against Eagle Vista Equities LLC (“Eagle Vista”) and Wedgewood, 

Inc. (“Wedgewood”) alleging wrongful foreclosure and seeking a judgment quieting title to the 

property in her name. Bankruptcy Court Judge Hannah L. Blumenstiel granted summary 

judgment for Eagle Vista and Wedgewood, and Ms. Sutton appealed. Currently before the Court 

are (1) Ms. Sutton’s request that her untimely filed Designation of Record and Statement of Issues 

on Appeal be accepted, and (2) Ms. Sutton’s Motion for an Extension of Time. 

II. BACKGROUND

On September 27, 2018, Eve Sutton filed suit against Eagle Vista, Wedgewood, and Bank 

of the West in Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of California.

1

 Notice of Appeal from 

Bankruptcy Court (“Notice”) at 2, Docket No. 1. As part of that suit, Ms. Sutton alleged wrongful 

 

1

In its Order Granting Summary Judgment, the Bankruptcy Court indicated that it would issue an 

order “requiring Ms. Sutton to appear and show cause as to why this adversary proceeding should 

not be dismissed as to Defendant Bank of the West, N.A., whose only connection to this action 

appears to be the fact that it lent Eagle Vista the funds used to purchase the Property at the 

foreclosure sale.” SJ Order at 30. 

Case 3:19-cv-03880-EMC Document 12 Filed 09/25/19 Page 1 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

foreclosure by Eagle Vista Equities LLC (“Eagle Vista”) and Wedgewood, Inc (“Wedgewood”). 

See Order Granting Summary Judgment in Favor of Eagle Vista Equities LLC And Wedgewood, 

Inc. (“SJ Order”) at 26–27, Docket No. 1-2. She also sought cancellation of “the Trustee’s Deed 

that conveyed the Property to Eagle Vista or . . . a judgment quieting title to the Property in her 

name.” Id. at 27. On June 28, 2019, Judge Blumenstiel granted summary judgment in favor of 

Eagle Vista and Wedgewood on the issues of wrongful foreclosure and quieting of the title to the 

property. Id. at 1, 29. 

On July 5, 1019, Ms. Sutton “appeal[ed] under 28 U.S.C. §158(a) from the Order Granting

Summary Judgment in Favor of Eagle Vista Equities LLC.” Notice at 1. On August 6, 2019 the 

Bankruptcy Court issued a Notice of Incomplete Record on Appeal, indicating that no Designation 

of the Record or Statement of Issues had been filed. See Docket No. 6. Rule 8009 of the Federal 

Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure requires that an appellant “file and serve the designation and 

statement within 14 days after . . . the appellant’s notice of appeal as of right becomes effective 

under Rule 8002.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1). On August 7, 2019, counsel for Ms. Sutton filed 

a Designation of Record and Statement of Issues on Appeal. See Docket No. 7 (“DRSI”). As part 

of that filing, counsel included a “Request That Document Be Accepted Despite Late Filling.” Id. 

A copy of the filing was served on the parties by U.S. Mail. Id. at 8.

On September 19, 2019, Ms. Sutton also filed an ex parte motion for “an extension of time 

to file her Opening Brief and Excerpts of Record.” See Ex Parte First Motion for Extension of 

Time to File Excerpts of Record and Opening Brief (“Mot.”) at 1, Docket No. 11.2 In this Court’s 

Scheduling Order from July 8, 2019, the Court ordered that Appellant’s brief would be due “no 

more than 30 days after docketing of notice that the record has been transmitted or is available 

electronically on the District Court’s docket.” Notice of Filing of Appeal and Scheduling Order, 

Docket No. 2. Ms. Sutton requests “an extension of time until Friday, November 1, 2019 to file 

 

2 Ms. Sutton explains that “[t]his motion is being made on an ex parte basis since Ms. Sutton will 

sustain irreparable injury by being denied an opportunity to be heard if she was required to make 

this motion as a formally noticed motion.” Mot. at 1–2. However, no explanation of the 

irreparable injury is made, and it does not appear that the request is timely because the record has 

not been transmitted to the district court. The document was served on the parties through ECF. 

Id. at 3.

Case 3:19-cv-03880-EMC Document 12 Filed 09/25/19 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Appellant’s Opening Brief and Request for Stay on Appeal.” Mot. ¶ 8. However, the record has 

not yet been transmitted to the Court (and the Court has been informed that the record will not be 

transmitted unless it issues a ruling granting Ms. Sutton’s request that her Designation of Record 

and Statement of Issues be accepted despite their late filling). 

There is also an Unlawful Detainer action currently pending before Judge Gerald 

Buchwald in the San Mateo Superior Court (Action CLJ 211439). See Mot. ¶ 3. That case is 

separate from—but related to—the Wrongful Foreclosure case on appeal in this Court. On July 

28, 2019, Eagle Vista asked the San Mateo Superior Court to grant it immediate possession of the 

property, while Ms. Sutton’s request for a stay pending appeal was set for hearing before Judge 

Blumenstiel on August 15, 2019. Id. ¶ 4–5. Eagle Vista’s request for immediate possession was 

denied, and Judge Blumenstiel subsequently denied Ms. Sutton’s request for a stay pending 

appeal. Id. Eagle Vista then renewed its request for possession in light of Judge Blumenstiel’s 

decision, and Judge Buchwald “concluded that Ms. Sutton was entitled to a stay pending the 

appeal to [the district court] of the decision of Judge Blumenstiel.” Id. ¶ 6. As a condition of that 

stay, Ms. Sutton must pay $2,000 per month in rent to Eagle Vista; a further hearing has been set 

in the San Mateo court for December 16, 2019 so that the parties can update Judge Buchwald of 

the status of this appeal. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

“An appellant’s failure to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal 

does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for the district court or [Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel] to act as it considers appropriate, including dismissing the appeal.” Fed. R. 

Bankr. P. 8003. Typically, “[a] procedural violation of a bankruptcy rule alone is an insufficient 

basis for granting a motion to dismiss an appeal.” Abrahams v. Hentz, No. 12CV1560-GPC-BGS, 

2013 WL 3147732, at *7 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2013), aff'd sub nom. In re Abrahams, 601 F. App’x 

570 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Fitzsimmons v. Nolden, 920 F.2d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir.1990)). 

The court may enlarge the time “on motion made after the expiration of the specified 

period . . . where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b). 

Case 3:19-cv-03880-EMC Document 12 Filed 09/25/19 Page 3 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Supreme Court has “adopted a four-factor equitable test for determining what constitutes 

excusable neglect: [1] the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, [2] the length of the 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 movant acted in good faith.” 

Baldwin v. United States, 823 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1113–14 (D. N. Mar. I. 2011) (internal quotations 

and brackets omitted) (citing Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. 

Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)).

B. Request That Document Be Accepted Despite Late Filling

1. Prejudice

Eagle Vista Equities LLC has failed to establish prejudice. Notably, Eagle Vista and 

Wedgewood filed a “Designation of Additional Items to Be Included in the Record on Appeal” on 

August 16, 2019, after Ms. Sutton had filed her Designation of Record and Statement of Issues. 

See Docket No. 7. That filing demonstrates that Eagle Vista and Wedgewood had an adequate 

opportunity to respond to Ms. Sutton’s filing.

2. Length of Delay

Here, Ms. Sutton appealed on July 5, 2019, Notice at 1, and she had 14 days from that date 

to file and serve the designation and statement, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1). Thus, the 

Designation of Record and Statement of Issues should have been filed on or before July 19. Ms. 

Sutton filed these required documents on August 7, 2019, three weeks after they were due. Courts 

have accepted much longer delays in an effort to provide parties with decisions on the merits. See, 

e.g., Cheng v. Osterback, No. 2:15-CV-01617-TLN, 2016 WL 10675828, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 

10, 2016), aff’d sub nom. In re Cheng, 698 F. App’x 383 (9th Cir. 2017) (treating a delay of 

“almost six months past the original deadline” as timely in order “to provide Appellants with a 

decision on the merits”). The relatively short delay at issue here counsels in favor of accepting the 

late submission.

3. Reason for Delay

Counsel explains he “mistakenly believed that the time for filing this Designation of 

Record on Appeal and related Statement of Issues would not begin until the Court heard and 

Case 3:19-cv-03880-EMC Document 12 Filed 09/25/19 Page 4 of 6
5

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

decided the related Motion for Stay [which was to be heard by Judge Blumenstiel on August 15, 

2019].” Id. ¶ 3.

3

 Because Ms. Sutton first filed her Motion to Stay Pending Appeal on July 16, 

2019, see Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, Docket No. 44 (in Bankruptcy Court Case #18-03061), 

just before the Designation of Record and Statement of Issues were due, the Court finds it 

reasonable—particularly in light of counsel’s assertion that “[t]he US District Court judge hearing 

the appeal will not have the full picture related to the case until the Court resolves the Motion for 

Stay/Injunction pending appeal,” DRSI at 6—that counsel believed time for filing the required 

appellate documents would not begin until the Court decided the related Motion for Stay. 

4. Good Faith

Because counsel for Ms. Sutton moved expeditiously when notified by the Court of the 

missing documents, because the late filing appears to be the result of a mistaken understanding, 

and because it does not appear that counsel misrepresented their reasons for filing late, the Court 

concludes that counsel did act in good faith. See, e.g., Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 

F.3d 1253, 1262 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding good faith where attorney relied on a calendaring 

mistake); Baldwin, 823 F. Supp. 2d at 1119 (finding good faith where “counsel acted quickly . . . 

after realizing her mistake”)

The Court thus finds no reason to reject Ms. Sutton’s untimely filed Designation of Record 

and Statement of Issues on Appeal. The Court GRANTS Appellant’s request that the document 

be accepted. 

C. Motion for Extension of Time

The Court now turns to Appellant’s request for “an extension of time until Friday, 

November 1, 2019 to file Appellant’s Opening Brief and Request for Stay on Appeal.” Mot. ¶ 8. 

 

3 Counsel also explains that “Judge Blumenstiel ordered [Glen Moss] to secure an ECF number in 

the Bankruptcy Court,” because the “ECF numbers provided to [him] by the US District Court for 

Northern California and the Ninth Circuit were insufficient.” DRSI ¶ 1. He acquired an ECF 

number for Bankruptcy Court on July 29, 2019. Id. Although he does not explain the importance 

of this information, it seems possible that he includes it because he would have been notified of 

the deadline for filing the Designation of Record and Statement of Issues on Appeal had he 

possessed an ECF number earlier. However, in Ms. Sutton’s subsequent motion (Docket No. 11), 

counsel explains that Dean Lloyd (co-counsel for Ms. Sutton) had ECF access for the Bankruptcy 

Court. See Mot. ¶ 2. Thus, it is unclear whether ECF access contributed to Ms. Sutton’s delay in 

filing. 

Case 3:19-cv-03880-EMC Document 12 Filed 09/25/19 Page 5 of 6
6

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

As it will take some time for the record to be transmitted to the Court, the Court GRANTS

Appellant’s Motion for an Extension of Time.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Appellant’s request that the Designation of 

Record and Statement of Issues on Appeal (Docket No. 7) be accepted. The Court GRANTS

Appellant’s Motion for an Extension of Time. Her opening brief shall be due November 1, 2019.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 7 and 11. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-03880-EMC Document 12 Filed 09/25/19 Page 6 of 6