900 Linden Block Development, LLC

Filing 10


Download PDF
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

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?