Ayoub
Filing
19
ORDER (1) Granting in Part and Denying in Part Appellant's 5 Motion to Extend Time to File Brief on Appeal and Temporarily Unseal Bankruptcy Court Record and (2) Denying Appellees' 12 and 18 Motions to Dismiss Appeal. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN RE:
TED T. AYOUB,
Case No. 16-cv-13687
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
Debtor.
___________________________________/
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
APPELLANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF ON
APPEAL AND TEMPORARILY UNSEAL BANKRUPTCY COURT
RECORD (ECF #5) AND (2) DENYING APPELLEES’ MOTIONS TO
DISMISS APPEAL (ECF ##12 & 18)
This matter is before the Court on appeal from the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. There are three motions currently pending
before the Court.
The first motion is Appellant Ted Ayoub’s Motion to Extend Time to File Brief
on Appeal and to Temporarily Unseal Bankruptcy Court Record (the “Motion to
Extend Time and Unseal Record”). The Motion to Extend Time and Unseal Record
(ECF #5) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. The Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan (the “Clerk”) shall provide access to the record for
Bankruptcy Case 10-62790 to counsel for all parties to this appeal. Such
access shall be limited to in-person access in the office of the Clerk.
1
Furthermore, the Clerk shall permit counsel to print and/or copy
documents within the record at the expense of counsel.
2. If any counsel makes copies of documents in the Bankruptcy Court
record, counsel shall use those documents solely for the purposes of this
appeal and shall not disclose these documents to anyone not assisting
with the preparation of this appeal.
3. In all other respects, the bankruptcy record shall remain sealed.
4. The briefing schedule for this appeal is modified as set forth at the end of
this order.
The second and third motions are Motions to Dismiss the Appeal (the “Motions
to Dismiss”) by (1) Appellees Beier Howlett, PC, Lambert Leser, PC, and Joseph F.
Yamin (ECF # 12) and (2) Appellees RSA Design Group, LLC and Robert Szantner
(ECF #18). The Motions to Dismiss are DENIED for the reasons stated by the Court
on the record during the telephonic status conference held on December 21, 2016.
Instead of dismissal, the Court directs the Appellants to designate the contents of the
record of this appeal by the deadline set forth below and to order the transcript of the
Bankruptcy Court proceedings by the deadline set forth below.
The Court adopts the following revised schedule for this appeal:
1. By not later than January 6, 2017, Appellants shall order the bankruptcy
court transcripts.
2
2. By not later than January 16, 2017, Appellants shall complete their
review of the bankruptcy court record and file the required designation
of record on appeal.
3. Appellants shall file their appeal brief not later than twenty-one days
after the transcripts are filed on the Bankruptcy Court docket.
4. Appellees shall file their appeal briefs not later than twenty-one days
after Appellees file their appeal brief.
5. Appellants may file their reply brief not later than fourteen days after
Appellees file their appeal brief.
The parties are advised that failure to strictly comply with any of the requirements
set forth in this Order may result in dismissal of the appeal or other appropriate relief.
Appellants have already failed to take required steps on appeal, and the Court will be
inclined to dismiss the appeal for any further non-compliance with rules or orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 27, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on December 27, 2016, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(313) 234-5113
3
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?