900 Linden Block Development, LLC

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/17/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

In re 900 LINDEN BLOCK DEVELOPMENT,
LLC, a California limited liability company,
Debtor.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

/

14
15

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE

900 LINDEN BLOCK DEVELOPMENT, LLC,

12
13

No. C 13-05288 SI

Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,
Appellee.

/

16
On November 12, 2013, debtor/appellant 900 Linden Block Development, LLC filed a notice
17
of appeal from the bankruptcy court’s “Order Granting United States Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss Case
18
Without Prejudice And Imposing One-Year Bar to Refiling.” Docket No. 1-2. Shortly thereafter, Tracy
19
Henderson, counsel for 900 Linden Block Development, LLC, filed a motion for leave to withdraw as
20
counsel. Docket No. 3. The motion to withdraw came on for oral argument on December 13, 2013.
21
Although no written opposition was filed, Mr. Koray Ergur, debtor’s Managing Agent, appeared in
22
person at the hearing and argued against the motion to withdraw.
23
Following the hearing, on December 16, 2013, the Court granted the motion to withdraw
24
effective sixty (60) days from the date the order was filed and stayed the action until Friday, February
25
14, 2014 to allow debtor/appellant to obtain replacement counsel. Docket No. 9. In the order, the Court
26
explained that because debtor/appellant is a limited liability company, it cannot proceed in this action
27
without licensed counsel. Id. (citing Civil L.R. 3-9(b); Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S.
28

1

194, 202 (1993)). In addition, the Court cautioned that if new counsel for debtor/appellant did not

2

appear in this action prior to the end of the stay, the Court would entertain a motion to dismiss for failure

3

to prosecute.

4

The Court’s stay ended over a month ago, yet no notice of appearance has been filed on behalf

5

of debtor/appellant. Nor has any other action been taken in the case. Accordingly, this case is dismissed

6

without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a) (“An appellant’s failure to take

7

any step other than timely filing a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is

8

ground only for such action as the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel deems appropriate, which

9

may include dismissal of the appeal.”).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: March 17, 2014

15

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2