Kim et al v. First Evangelicial Church of America
Filing
15
ORDER granting 14 Motion to Dismiss. Any other pending matters are TERMINATED and the Clerk shall close this file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 11/29/2017. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8
DONG WUK KIM, et al.,
Case No. 5:17-cv-01094-EJD
Appellants,
9
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS
v.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Re: Dkt. No. 14
FIRST KOREAN CHRISTIAN CHURCH
OF SAN JOSE, et al.,
Appellees.
Presently before the court is a Motion to Dismiss this bankruptcy appeal, filed by
14
Appellees. Dkt. No. 14. Appellants did not file written opposition to the motion, and the time for
15
filing such opposition has expired under both bankruptcy and district court rules. See Fed. R.
16
Bankr. P. 8013; see also Civ. L.R. 7-3.
17
18
19
20
21
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8018(a)(4) states:
If an appellant fails to file a brief on time or within an extended time
authorized by the district court or BAP, an appellee may move to
dismiss the appeal - or the district court or BAP, after notice, may
dismiss the appeal on its own motion.
Here, the parties were notified by the district court Clerk that the record on appeal was
22
complete as of April 19, 2017. Dkt. No. 11. Pursuant to the scheduling order issued when this
23
appeal was docketed, Appellants were required to file their principal brief no later than 30 days
24
from the date of that notice, or by May 19, 2017. Dkt. No. 2; Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a). They did
25
not do so and did not explain their default in opposition to this motion.
26
Appellants’ failure to prosecute this appeal in a manner that complies with the scheduling
27
order, and indeed their silence in response to a motion seeking dismissal, each constitutes
28
Case No.: 5:17-cv-01094-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
1
sufficient grounds to dismiss this action either under Rule 8018(a)(4) or for failing to comply with
2
a local rule or court order. See In re Fitzsimmons, 920 F.2d 1468, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1990); see
3
also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 838 (1995) (“Failure
4
to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
5
41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant
6
may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.”); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
7
1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Though the court has considered alternatives to dismissal by “placing
8
the case at the bottom of the calendar” and contemplating an additional notice to Appellants (In re
9
Fitzsimmons, 920 F.2d at 1472-75), the court is not convinced that additional time or notice will
10
resolve Appellants’ inaction at this point, especially given their inattention to a motion directly
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
seeking termination of their appeal. The court therefore finds that employing any alternatives to
12
dismiss would be futile.
13
Accordingly, Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 14) is GRANTED. This appeal is
14
DISMISSED. Any other pending matters are TERMINATED and the Clerk shall close this file.
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 29, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.: 5:17-cv-01094-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
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?