processes of law, they have done so in a manner more appropriate
to a scofflaw. It is more than apparent from his total neglect
of the law's requirements--taking advantage of the delay produced
by inertia--that Opal is simply seeking to hinder his mortgagee's
orderly pursuit of its foreclosure remedy. That effort has
succeeded for over four months, but it is time to call a halt.

Both Opal's appeal and this action are dismissed with prejudice.

Cello. DE aches

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: June 24, 2002


Minute © dor Form (06197)

AQ United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge Milton I. Shadur Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 3259 DATE 6/24/2002
CASE In Re: S@m® Anthony P. Opal
TITLE

MOTIO!

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.)

Copy to judge/magistrate judge

DOCKET ENTRY:
ql) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]}
(2) o Brief in support of motion due __
(3) oO Answer brief to motion due __. Reply to answer brief due___
(4) a Ruling/Hearing on __ set for at
6) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on_____setfor_ at
(6) im] Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at_
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for} on at
(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing} held/continued to at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOrFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule2l CIFRCP41(a\(1) O FRCPAI(a)(2)
ao) «ff {Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Both Opal’s appeal and this action
are dismissed with prejudice.
al) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open cour. Document
. Number
No notices required. uinber ef notices
Notices mailed by judge's staff. JUN 22 2002
Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed
SY | Docketing to mail notices.
7 _| Mail AO 450 form boeing deputy ntl

date mailed notice
courtroom

SN deputy’s
initials

mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS oxy
EASTERN DIVISION &;

In re

No. 02 C 3259
(02 B 5579)

ANTHONY P. OPAL,

Debtor.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On February 13, 2002 Anthony Opal, through his bankruptcy
counsel, filed a voluntary Chapter 13 petition. That of course
triggered the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. §362. Chase
Manhattan Mortgage Corporation then quickly moved for relief from
the stay as to the property known as 505 North Lake Shore Drive,
Unit 3503, Chicago, Illinois, and the Bankruptcy Court granted
the motion and terminated the stay as to that property on
March 14.

On March 25 Opal (still acting through counsel) filed a
notice of appeal (which was then amended on March 28), but since
then he and his counsel have done nothing at all to pursue that
appeal (or, for that matter, to take any action in conjunction
with the underlying Chapter 13 proceeding, which was then
dismissed on the Trustee's motion on April 11). Because Opal and
his counsel had failed to comply with the Bankruptcy Rule 8006
requirement for the timely filing of a designation of contents of
the record on appeal and a statement of issues, the Bankruptcy
Clerk served notice on April 9 that the notice of appeal would be

transmitted to this District Court on May 7. That was done, and


the case was assigned at random to this Court's calendar.

As indicated earlier, the total silence on Opal's part has
persisted. It thus became incumbent on this Court to initiate
its own efforts to obtain copies of the relevant portions of the
Bankruptcy Court file and to undertake the necessary search for
authority as to the appropriate action to be taken under such
circumstances. That search led this Court to a thoughtful
opinion written by the late Honorable Hubert Will (to whose seat
on this District Court this Court was privileged to succeed)
while he was sitting by designation with our Court of Appeals.
In re Bulic, 997 F.2d 299 (7TM Cir. 1993) dealt with a case
presenting a less grievous violation of Bankruptcy Rule 8006 than
Opal's here--a week-late filing rather than no filing at all.
And Bulic, id. at 301-02, after explaining the differing
approaches that courts had taken in such situations, upheld the
District Court's dismissal of the appeal in that case.

This Court has given full consideration to all of the
circumstances here, including its having taken full account of

the “excusable neglect” ruling in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.

Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) as to the

application of Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b). Having done so, this
Court finds that the discretion vested by Bankruptcy Rule 8001 (a)
and discussed in Bulic calls for dismissal of Opal's appeal.

Although he and his counsel have purportedly invoked the