Melcher

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte denying 11 Motion to Amend/Correct ; in case 5:13-cv-01665-RMW; denying 11 Motion to Amend/Correct ; in case 5:13-cv-03766-RMW (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12

JACQUELINE CARLIN MELCHER,
Appellant,

13
14
15

Case Nos. C-13-05259, 13-01665-RMW,
13-03766, 14-00749, 14-00872, 14-01299,
14-01382

v.
JOHN W. RICHARDSON, Trustee in
Bankruptcy,

16

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Appellee.

17
18
19

Debtor Jacqueline Carlin Melcher seeks reconsideration of the court’s September 30, 2014

20

order dismissing with prejudice Ms. Melcher’s seven bankruptcy appeals. 1 See Case No. 13-cv-

21

5259, Dkt. Nos. 12, 10. The court dismissed Ms. Melcher’s appeals for failure to prosecute, finding

22

that she had: (1) taken no action in the appeals, the most recent of which had been pending for six

23

months with no action; (2) repeatedly failed to comply with various Local Rules governing the

24

filing of motions with the court; (3) previously had ten prior appeals dismissed by this court for

25

failure to prosecute; and (4) “consistently abused the filing requirements of this court and [had] been

26

previously warned that failing to abide by the rules of this court and failure to prosecute her appeals

27

[would] result in the dismissal of her appeals.” See Dkt. No. 10, at 1–2.

28
1

See Case Nos. 13-cv-01665, 13-cv-03766, 13-cv-05259, 14-cv-00749, 14-cv-00872, 14-cv-01299, and 14-cv-01382.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
-1EDB

1

Ms. Melcher moves for reconsideration of the court’s prior order dismissing her bankruptcy

2

appeals. See Dkt. No. 12. As the court’s dismissal of Ms. Melcher’s appeals was with prejudice, and

3

the case was subsequently closed, the court construes Ms. Melcher’s motion as a motion for relief

4

from a final judgment, order, or proceeding under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). “The

5

useful purpose of the principle of finality of judgments requires that the Court scrutinize closely [a]

6

motion for relief and the grounds upon which it is based. If judgments are vacated on tenuous and

7

insignificant grounds they will lack finality and there will be no end to litigation. Geigel v. Sea Land

8

Serv., Inc, 44 F.R.D. 1, 2 (D.P.R. 1968). Because Rule 60(b) relief is such an extraordinary remedy,

9

it is granted only in exceptional circumstances. See ClearOne Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 643 F.3d

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

735, 754 (10th Cir. 2011).
Ms. Melcher’s motion appears to seek relief from the court’s prior order dismissing her

12

appeals on the basis of mistake, alleging that the bankruptcy clerk failed to transmit to this court

13

documents related to Ms. Melcher’s appeals. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (a court may relieve a party

14

from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

15

neglect.”). Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8005(b) provides that upon receipt of an

16

appellant’s election to have an appeal heard by the District Court instead of the Bankruptcy

17

Appellate Panel, “the bankruptcy clerk must transmit to the district clerk all documents related to

18

the appeal.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8005(b). In her motion, Ms. Melcher argues that “[m]any of the

19

designated documents on appeal were never transferred to the District Court as revealed by the [sic]

20

Angela Wong in October 2014.” Dkt. No. 12, at 1. The court understands Ms. Melcher’s motion to

21

seek relief from the court’s prior order on this basis.

22

However, the mistake identified by Ms. Melcher does not provide a basis upon which the

23

court might grant her relief under Rule 60(b). Assuming Ms. Melcher’s allegations that the

24

bankruptcy clerk failed to transfer to this court “many” documents related to her appeals, she fails to

25

link this mistake with the court’s order dismissing her appeals. The court dismissed Ms. Melcher’s

26

appeals based on her failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the Local Rules, and history of

27

abusing the court’s filing requirements and procedures despite the court’s warnings. See Dkt. No.

28

10, at 1–2. The court did not rule on the merits of her appeals, but rather dismissed the case on
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
EDB

-2-

1

account of Ms. Melcher’s repeated failure to comply with the applicable procedural rules and the

2

court’s directives. Put another way, even had all of Ms. Melcher’s documents been transferred to

3

this court, the court would still have found that Ms. Melcher failed to prosecute the case.

4
5

Accordingly, the court denies Ms. Melcher’s motion for relief from the court’s prior order
dismissing her appeals.

6
7
8

Dated: November 13, 2014

_________________________________
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
EDB

-3-