Mohsen

Filing 10

ORDER Regarding Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 5/21/2013. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

In re: AMR MOHSEN
Debtor,

12
13
14

AMR MOHSEN

15

Appellant,

16
17

v.
CAROL WU, Chapter 7 Trustee,

18
Appellee.

19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-03610-LHK
ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE

20
On June 22, 2012, the United States Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the
21
22
23

Trustee’s final account and payment of professional fees in the bankruptcy case of Amr Mohsen
(“Appellant” or “Mohsen”). See Order Re: Tr.’s Final Acct. and Final Fee Appl. of Tr.’s Acct. and
Att’ys, ECF No. 1, at 17. The following day, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) and (c)(1), Mohsen

24
signed and mailed a Statement to Assign Notice of Appeal to the United States District Court and a
25
Notice of Appeal to the United States District Court. ECF No. 1, at 3, 5. These documents were
26
filed on July 10, 2012. Id. On July 11, 2012, the Deputy Clerk filed a Notice of Briefing. ECF
27
No. 2.
28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-03610-LHK
ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

1

On August 9, 2012, Appellee filed an Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss the Appeal for Lack of

2

Prosecution, requesting that this appeal be dismissed because of Mohsen’s failure to comply with

3

Bankruptcy Rule 8006. See Ex Parte Mot. to Dismiss the Appeal for Lack of Prosecution, ECF

4

No. 3, at 2 (“Mot.”). Appellee asserted that, as of August 9, 2012, Mohsen was out of compliance

5

with Bankruptcy Rule 8006 because Mohsen had not: (1) “file[d] or serve[d] a designation of the

6

record or issues on appeal;” (2) “provided the clerk with a copy of any designated items;” or (3)

7

“taken . . . steps to order any transcripts.” Mot. at 2. Mohsen filed a response to the Motion on

8

August 24, 2012. ECF No. 5 (“Response”). On March 5, 2013, the Court denied Appellee’s Ex

9

Parte Motion to Dismiss the Appeal for Lack of Prosecution. ECF No. 8.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

In spite of denial, Mohsen still has not filed anything in the past two and a half months.

11

Accordingly, the Court now sets the following briefing schedule. By June 21, 2013, Mohsen shall

12

serve and file a brief not exceeding 25 pages in length.

13

Appellee must serve and file a brief not exceeding 25 pages in length 20 days after service

14

of Mohsen’s brief. If Appellee files a cross-appeal, the brief of Appellee must contain the issues

15

and argument pertinent to the cross-appeal, denominated as such.

16

Mohsen must serve and file a reply brief not exceeding 15 pages in length 10 days after

17

service of Appellee’s brief. If Appellee has filed a cross-appeal, Mohsen must include his

18

opposition in the reply brief.

19
20

Appellee may serve and file a reply to the opposition to any cross appeal not exceeding 15
pages in length 10 days after service of appellant’s brief.

21

Pursuant to B.L.R. 8010-1, upon completion of the briefing, the undersigned judge will set

22

a date for oral argument, if needed. Otherwise, the matter will be deemed submitted for decision.

23

If Mohsen fails to file a brief on June 21, 2013, the Court will issue an Order to Show

24

Cause why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: May 21, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

27
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-03610-LHK
ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE