Genautica Oil Holdings, LP v. Vetter et al

Filing 39

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL RULES signed by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff on 7/07/2024. (Gonzales, V)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GENAUTICA OIL HOLDINGS, LP, 11 Plaintiff-Appellant, 12 v. 13 TEMBLOR PETROLEUM COMPANY, LLC, et al., 14 No. 1:22-cv-01507-KES ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL RULES Defendants-Appellees. 15 16 Plaintiff-Appellant, Genautica Oil Holdings, LP (“appellant”), filed this bankruptcy 17 18 appeal on November 18, 2022, appealing the United States Bankruptcy Court’s Amended Order 19 on Motion to Sell Estate’s Interest in Property.1 (Doc. 1.) Appellant’s opening brief was initially 20 due by January 23, 2023. On January 23, 2023, the court granted appellant’s unopposed motion 21 for additional time to file its opening brief. Docs. 4, 7. Appellant was granted additional 22 extensions of time on April 24, 2023; July 24, 2023; September 8, 2023; November 6, 2023; 23 December 20, 2023, February 20, 2024; and April 18, 2024. Docs. 11, 16, 20, 29, 38. On 24 April 18, 2024, the court ordered appellant to file and serve its opening appeal brief no later than 25 June 18, 2024, and noted that “[a]ny further motion for an extension of time to file the opening 26 brief in this appeal will be disfavored and must be supported by specific and substantial good 27 1 28 Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1), a party may elect to have an appeal heard by the United States District Court rather than the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. 1 1 cause.” Doc. 38 at 2. The filing deadline has passed, and appellant has failed to file its opening 2 appeal brief. See docket. 3 A district court possesses the inherent power to control its docket, United States v. W.R. 4 Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), and may dismiss an action sua sponte for 5 failure to prosecute, McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). A party’s failure to 6 comply with applicable rules and law may also be grounds for dismissal or any other sanction 7 appropriate under the Local Rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) 8 (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”). Local 9 Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any 10 order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized 11 by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court, however, recognizes 12 that “dismissal is a harsh penalty, and, therefore, it should be imposed only in extreme 13 circumstances.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). 14 This action has been pending since November 18, 2022. Over two weeks has passed since 15 the deadline for appellant to file its opening appeal brief, and appellant has failed to file its 16 opening brief and no motion for an extension of time has been filed. 17 Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order, appellant 18 Genautica Oil Holdings, LP shall show cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed 19 for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Local Rules. Alternatively, within fourteen 20 (14) days, Appellant may voluntarily dismiss the action. Appellant is warned that failure to 21 comply with this order may result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute and 22 failure to obey court orders. 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 7, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 2

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?