In Re: Estrella and James Kincaid

Filing 28

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 1/6/2015 DENYING the 23 Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JAMES KINCAID and ESTELLA
KINCAID,
Appellants,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-01032-TLN

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
SUSAN K. SMITH AND THE OFFICE
OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE,

16

Trustees.

17
18

This case was originally brought before this Court on May 24, 2013. (See Notice of

19

Bankruptcy Appeal, ECF No. 1.) On August 20, 2014, the Deputy Clerk of the U.S. Bankruptcy

20

Court of the Eastern District of California certified that the record with respect to Appellants

21

James Kincaid and Estella Kincaid (“Appellants”) was complete for purposes of this appeal.

22

(ECF No. 17.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009, Appellants’ opening

23

brief and excerpts of record were due, filed in the district court, within fourteen (14) days of the

24

certification. (ECF No. 17.) On September 5, 2014, Appellants filed a motion for a fourteen (14)

25

week extension to file their opening brief. (ECF No. 18.) The Court granted this request, but

26

warned Appellants that the Court would not grant any further extension. (See Minute Order, ECF

27

No. 19.)

28

On December 1, 2014, Appellants filed an ex parte application requesting another
1

1

extension. (ECF No. 20.) The Court denied this application, finding that Appellants failed to

2

show good cause for another extension, especially in light of the Court’s previous admonishment.

3

(See Order, ECF No. 22.) In response, Appellants filed an Emergency Ex Parte Motion for

4

Reconsideration (ECF No. 23), in which Appellants contend that Appellant James Kincaid’s

5

health has deteriorated and is causing delays. The Court is sympathetic to Appellants’ health

6

issues, but finds that this is not a new occurrence. Appellants complained of this issue back in

7

June of 2014, and the Court took that into consideration when it reopened Appellants’ case which

8

had been closed for filing deficiencies. (See ECF Nos 15, 16.) The Court again excused

9

Appellants’ failure to file their opening brief on September 5, 2014, when the Court granted them

10

a fourteen (14) week extension to file their opening brief. (ECF No. 18.) The Court cannot

11

indefinitely grant Appellants’ requests for extensions. In fact, Appellants were warned that they

12

would not be granted any future extension and nothing in Appellants’ Emergency Ex Parte

13

Motion for Reconsideration excuses their lack of meeting this Court’s deadlines. Accordingly,

14

Appellants Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 23) is hereby DENIED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: January 6, 2015

18
19
20
21

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2