In Re: Jose Rafael Solano

Filing 7

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 4/28/2017. (vdr)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 17-2811 FMO Title In re Jose R. Solano Present: The Honorable Date April 19, 2017 Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorney Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney Present for Defendant(s): None None Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction On April 13, 2017, this bankruptcy action was appealed to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) or § 158(b). (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Appeal). The bankruptcy order being appealed is the Order Granting Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay, entered on April 7, 2017. (See id. at 1). However, the Notice of Appeal does not include a copy of the order dated April 7, 2017. (See, generally, id.; see Dkt. 3, Notice of Appeal Deficiency) (noting that Notice of Appeal “[d]oes not include entered stamped copy of order, judgment or decree”). Thus, the record is incomplete. District courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from “final judgments, orders, and decrees[,]” and “with leave of the court, from other interlocutory orders and decrees[.]” 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) & 158(a)(3). The record does not indicate that a final judgment, order, or decree has been entered. Rather, on April 14, 2017,the bankruptcy court entered a stipulation continuing the hearing on the motion for relief from stay to June 27, 2017. (In re Solano, Case No. BK 16-26833, Dkt. 54, Bankruptcy Court’s Order of April 14, 2017). Thus, it appears that final judgment has not been entered, and the court does not have jurisdiction over this case. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. No later than April 28, 2017, appellant shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellee may submit a response on the same day. 2. Failure to file a timely response to this Order to Show Cause may result in the action being dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with the orders of the court, pursuant to Local Rule 41. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1388 (1962). Initials of Preparer CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL vdr Page 1 of 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?