Brugnara Properties VI. v. Brugnara et al
Filing
32
ORDER TO FILE BRIEFING AND VACATING HEARING [re (29 in 3:18-cv-02787-WHA) MOTION to Consolidate Cases, (6 in 3:18-cv-02823-WHA) MOTION to Dismiss filed by Paul Greenfield, (60 in 3:18-cv-02822-WHA) MOTION to Consolidate and Dismiss Appeals filed by Paul Greenfield]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 12/10/2018. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2018)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
In re:
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
BRUGNARA PROPERTIES VI
No. C 18-02787 WHA
No. C 18-02822 WHA
12
Debtor.
/
13
14
BRUGNARA PROPERTIES VI,
17
KAY BRUGNARA, et al.,
Appellees.
/
KAY BRUGNARA,
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER TO FILE BRIEFING
AND VACATING HEARING
v.
18
19
No. C 18-03440 WHA
Appellant,
15
16
No. C 18-02823 WHA
Appellant,
v.
OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE/SF and
JANINA M. HOSKINS, Chapter 7 trustee,
Appellees.
/
25
26
This order concerns the cluster of appeals challenging the bankruptcy court’s conversion
27
of the case from a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 in the In re Brugnara Properties VI proceedings.
28
Appellants have failed to file any briefing in support of their appeals. Mr. Paul Greenfield, a
1
secured creditor and proposed intervenor, now moves to, inter alia, dismiss the appeals.
2
This order follows full briefing.
3
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), this order finds the motions suitable for submission
4
without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for December 13. For the
5
reasons explained below, appellants are ordered to file their opening briefs on appeal by
6
DECEMBER 21 AT NOON and creditor Greenfield’s motions are DENIED AS MOOT.*
the instant appeals concern only the bankruptcy court’s conversion of the case from a Chapter 11
9
to a Chapter 7 and that the IRS and FTB tax liens and nominee status of the debtor did not have
10
any impact on the bankruptcy court’s decision to convert. That argument was not supported by
11
For the Northern District of California
On June 7, during the hearing on the motion for an emergency stay, appellees argued that
8
United States District Court
7
the record. The subsequent order from the bench (memorialized in the June 7 written order)
12
stayed the sale of the family residence pending the bankruptcy court’s ruling on whether or not
13
Brugnara Properties VI (the home owner) is a nominee and/or alter ego of Luke Brugnara (the
14
delinquent taxpayer) (Case No. 18-02787 Dkt. Nos. 26 at 5–9, 37–41; 21).
15
Creditor Greenfield moves to consolidate the appeals related to the bankruptcy court’s
16
denial of the motion to reconsider conversion (Case Nos. 18-02787, 02822, 02823, and 03440)
17
and to dismiss them for failure to file any briefing (Case Nos. 18-02787, 18-02822), lack of
18
prosecution, failure to follow court orders (Case No. 18-03440), and lack of jurisdiction (Case
19
No. 18-02823) (Case No. 18-02822, Dkt. No. 60). Creditor Greenfield also renews his motion to
20
vacate the stay (Case No. 18-02822, Dkt. No. 62).
21
An appellant must file the record on appeal and a statement of the issues to be presented.
22
FRBP 8009(a). Trustee Janina M. Hoskins submitted the audio recording from the bankruptcy
23
court’s hearing on the Trustee’s Report Under Bankruptcy Code § 1106(a)(5) and
24
Recommendation to Convert Case to a Case Under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on
25
June 11 (Case No. 18-02787, Dkt. No. 24-2). Given the close relationship of the appeals, a
26
27
28
* The following motions are DENIED AS MOOT: Case No. 18-02787, Dkt. No. 29; 18-02822, Dkt.
Nos. 60, 62, 66; 18-2823, Dkt. No. 6; and 18-3440, Dkt. No. 3.
2
1
single submission will suffice. (Appellants, however, are ORDERED to file a written transcript of
2
the bankruptcy court’s hearing as well.)
3
The failure to brief is another matter.
4
Appellants’ failure to take any required step other than the timely filing of a notice of
5
appeal is grounds for dismissal of their appeals. FRBP 8003(a)(2). Dismissal, however, would
6
be premature at this stage. See Greco v. Stubenburg, 859 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1988) (alternative
7
measures to dismissal must first be considered). Nonetheless, the lackadaisical pace of these
8
appeals is at an end.
Greenfield, all appellants in the above cases are hereby ordered to file their initial briefs on
11
For the Northern District of California
Before reaching the merits of the appeals or the standing of the parties and creditor
10
United States District Court
9
appeal by December 21 at noon. All briefing should include a section on each appellant’s
12
standing and clarify this court’s jurisdiction to review the issue(s) raised. Failure to comply or
13
address these issues in good faith may result in dismissal of the appeals.
14
Creditor Greenfield also renews his motion to vacate the stay, and the Chapter 7 trustee
15
of the Brugnara Properties VI estate joins, requesting that the stay should be lifted effective
16
January 31, subject to the debtor seeking a further stay (Case No. 18-02822, Dkt. Nos. 62, 65).
17
That request is DENIED without prejudice, as it presumes the bankruptcy court will issue its
18
ruling on the same day as the evidentiary hearing.
19
20
*
*
*
In sum, all appellants in the above listed cases shall file their briefs on appeal by
21
DECEMBER 21 AT NOON. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of the appeals.
22
The audio recording of the bankruptcy court proceedings must be supplemented with a written
23
transcript. The December 13 hearing is VACATED. The stay issued on June 7 remains in effect
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
pending the bankruptcy court’s ruling. In no event shall this order be used to continue the
2
January 2019 hearing before the bankruptcy court.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: December 10, 2018.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?