In Re Peli Popovich Hunt

Filing 21

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) - RULING ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR FULL REMAND WITH RESTITUTION; AND REQUEST FOR SUA SPONTE RECUSAL 17 by Judge George H. Wu. In sum, the Court would DENY the Motion to Remand and DISMISS the Appellant's Appeal on its own motion. Further, the Court would find that the matter can be decided without oral argument (see Local Rules: Central District of California 7-15) and, hence, the September 18, 2017 hearing is taken off-calendar. (mrgo)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

Date

CV 16-3565-GW

Title In Re Peli Popovich Hunt
Present: The Honorable

September 15, 2017
Page

1 of 2

GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javier Gonzalez
Deputy Clerk

None Present
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)

None Present

None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS – RULING ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR FULL
REMAND WITH RESTITUTION; AND REQUEST FOR SUA SPONTE
RECUSAL [17]
Appellant Peli Popovich Hunt (“Appellant”) filed a Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) of a
Bankruptcy Court Order approving a settlement agreement in the case of In Re Peli Popovich
Hunt, 2:11-bk-58222-ER on May 23, 2016. See Docket No. 1. The Appellant requested a 30day extension to file her opening brief, which the Court denied. See Motion for Extension of
Time, Docket No. 10; July 25, 2016 Minute Order, Docket No. 12. The Appellant then filed a
Motion for Reconsideration, Docket No. 13, which the Court denied. See August 2, 2016 Minute
Order, Docket No. 14. Appellant failed to file an opening brief.
Now pending before the Court is the Appellant’s “Motion for Full Remand with
Restitution and Request for Sua Sponte Recusal” (“Mot.”). See Docket No. 19. The Appellant’s
moving papers are largely indecipherable but the “Motion” appears to be an attempt to appeal
and/or renew her appeal of several Bankruptcy Court decisions, including rulings on three
motions for summary judgment, in addition to the settlement approval that was the subject of the
NOA she filed over a year ago. See generally Mot.
Local Bankruptcy Rule 4.4 (8018-4.4) provides that “[i]f an appellant fails to file a brief
within the time provided by these rules, the district court may dismiss the appeal on its own
motion or upon motion of the appellee.” Given that Appellant failed to file an opening brief and

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk JG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

Date

CV 16-3565-GW

Title In Re Peli Popovich Hunt

September 15, 2017
Page

2 of 2

his request for an extension was denied over a year ago, the Court would DISMISS the Appeal
on its own motion.
To the extent Appellant’s pending Motion seeks other relief, it fails to “state with
particularity the grounds for the motion, the relief sought, and the legal argument necessary to
support it.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013. As a result, the Court would DENY the Motion1.
In sum, the Court would DENY the Motion to Remand and DISMISS the Appellant’s
Appeal on its own motion. Further, the Court would find that the matter can be decided without
oral argument (see Local Rules: Central District of California 7-15) and, hence, the September
18, 2017 hearing is taken off-calendar.

1

Appellant has been declared a vexatious litigant in the past, and has a habit of submitting incoherent
motions and appeals. See Appellee’s Opposition to Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time, Docket No. 11, pp.
2-4.
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk JG