Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-04072/USCOURTS-ca10-93-04072-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dunford M. Weston Family Partnership
Appellee
Lois L. Nielsen Estate
Appellee
Elwood L. Nielsen
Appellant
Lynn Nielsen
Appellant
Lois Price
Appellee
Grant Thornton
Appellee
Dunford Weston
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

fES 2 3 \994 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ELWOOD L. NIELSEN and LYNN NIELSEN, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

LOIS PRICE, Trustee; LOIS L. NIELSEN 

ESTATE; GRANT THORNTON, appointed 

trustee for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy 

case of Elwood and Lynn Nielsen, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

DUNFORD WESTON; DUNFORD M. WESTON 

FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, 

Intervenors-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

} 

} 

) 

) 

) 

} 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBElf:f L. kiO~C:'KER C!-:-·1: 

No. 93-4072 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH 

(D.C. No. 92-C-906-B} 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Elwood L. Nielsen and Lynn Nielsen, pro se. 

James C. Jenkins of Jenkins and Burbank, Logan, Utah, for 

Defendant-Appellee Lois Price. 

Harriet E. Styler and Kevin R. Anderson of Kruse, Landa & Maycock, 

Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendant-Appellee Grant Thornton. 

Gregory Skabelund, Logan, Utah, for Intervenors-Appellees Dunf ord 

Weston and The Dunford Weston Family Partnership. 

Appellate Case: 93-4072 Document: 01019657100 Date Filed: 02/23/1994 Page: 1 
Before TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,* Senior 

District Judge. 

*Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

TACHA, Circuit Judge. 

Plaintiffs, acting pro se, seek review of a district court 

order dismissing their appeal from an adverse judgment of the 

1 bankruptcy court. The district court concluded that, 11 [a]lthough 

[plaintiffs} filed a timely Notice of Appeal .., • • I they have 

failed to comply with any of the other pertinent rules governing 

an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court.n R. Vol. I tab 7, at 1. 

Specifically, the district court found plaintiffs had failed both 

to designate the record on appeal and to file a statement of the 

issues to be raised. See Bankr. R. 8006. Plaintiffs also did not 

file a brief within the time designated by the district court. 

See Bankr. R. 8009(a). Accordingly, the court exercised its 

discretionary authority under D. Utah R. 413 and Bankr. R. 8001 to 

dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. R. Vol. I tab 7, at 3. 

We review this ruling for an abuse of discretion. Balaber-Strauss 

v. Reichard (In ·re Tampa Chain Co.), 835 F.2d 54, 55 (2d Cir. 

1987); International Bhd. of Teamsters v. Braniff Airways. Inc. 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34{a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 93-4072 Document: 01019657100 Date Filed: 02/23/1994 Page: 2 
(In re Braniff Airways. Inc.), 774 F.2d 1303, 1305 {5th Cir. 

1985}. 

This court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties 

11 follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants." 

Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 {lOth Cir. 1992}, cert. 

denied, 113 S. Ct. 1336 {1993); see Casper v. Commissioner, 805 

F.2d 902, 906 n.3 (lOth Cir. 1986); Bradenburg v. Beaman, 632 F.2d 

120, 122 (lOth Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 984 (1981). 

Plaintiffs do not dispute the cited rule violations. Indeed, 

plaintiffs do not even attempt to present an explanation or excuse 

for their noncompliance. 2 Under the circumstances, we will not 

disturb the district court's determination that dismissal was 

warranted. See Balaber-Strauss, 835 F.2d at 56 (affirming 

district court's dismissal of appeal where appellants "argue[d1 

only the merits of their bankruptcy appeal, which of course are 

not before us, and d[id] not even address the failure-to-prosecute 

ground of the district court's dismissal of that appeal••) . 

2 We note that, after filing their appeal with the district 

court, plaintiffs each commenced a second bankruptcy action, this 

time in the District of Nevada, and then invoked the existence of 

the latter actions to seek a stay, presumably under 11 u.s.c. 

§ 362(a} (1), to postpone their already tardy appellate 

responsibilities in this case. The district court properly 

rejected this gambit when it dismissed plaintiffs' appeal. The 

§ 362(a) (1) stay applies to actions that are nagainst the debtor" 

at their inception, regardless of the subsequent appellate posture 

of the case. See Ellis v. Consolidated Diesel Elec. Corp., 894 

F.2d 371, 373 {lOth Cir. 1990). Moreover, we are concerned with 

the parties' alignment with respect to this particular adversary 

proceeding, not the underlying petition. O'Neill v. Continental 

Airlines. Inc. (In re Continental Airlines), 928 F.2d 127, 129 

(5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, § 362(a} (1} did not operate to stay 

this adversary proceeding commenced by the debtor-plaintiffs. 

3 

Appellate Case: 93-4072 Document: 01019657100 Date Filed: 02/23/1994 Page: 3 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Utah is AFFIRMED. Appellants' ex parte motion to 

supplement the record with the file from appellant Elwood Leslie 

Nielsen's 1978 divorce proceeding is denied. 

4 

Appellate Case: 93-4072 Document: 01019657100 Date Filed: 02/23/1994 Page: 4