Wyman

Filing 26

ORDER denying Ex Parte 22 MOTION to Enlarge Briefing Limitation. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (SSch)

Case 2:23-cv-10171-DML-EAS ECF No. 26, PageID.1702 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN RE CHRISTOPHER D. WYMAN,
Debtor,
________________________________________/

Case Number 23-10171
Honorable David M. Lawson

MICHAEL E. TINDALL,
Appellant,
v.
SAMUEL D. SWEET,
Appellee.
________________________________________/
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION TO ENLARGE BRIEFING LIMITATION
This matter is before the Court on appellant Michael E. Tindall’s ex parte motion to enlarge
the type-volume limitation for his brief in his bankruptcy appeal. On June 29, 2023, the appellant
filed a 13,875-word brief in support of his appeal of orders entered by the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The appellant’s brief exceeds the type-volume
limitation established by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and the appellant does not
offer valid grounds for expanding that limitation. The appellant’s motion to enlarge the briefing
limitation therefore will be denied.
Rule 8015 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure establishes limitations for the
“form and length of briefs” in bankruptcy appeals to district courts. The rule sets a page limitation
for principal briefs of 30 pages or, alternatively, a type-volume limitation of 13,000 words. Fed.
R. Bank. P. 8015(a)(7). However, in order a party to take advantage of the longer type-volume
limitation, they must submit a brief that meets two criteria. Fed. R. Bank. P. 8015(a)(7)(B). First,
the brief must “contain[] a certificate under Rule 8015(h).” Ibid. A Rule 8015(h) certificate is “a

Case 2:23-cv-10171-DML-EAS ECF No. 26, PageID.1703 Filed 06/30/23 Page 2 of 3

certificate by the attorney, or an unrepresented party, that the document complies with the typevolume limitation.” Fed. R. Bank. P. 8015(h). Second, the brief must “contain[]s no more than
13,000 words” or use “a monospaced face and contains no more than 1,300 lines of text.” Fed. R.
Bank. P. 8015(a)(7)(B).
The brief filed by the appellant does not comply with either of the Rule 8015(a)(7)(B)
criteria. The brief contains more than 13,000 words. And although it contains a certificate listing
the number of words, that certificate does not comply with Rule 8015(h), because the document
itself does not comply with the type-volume limitation. The filed brief therefore does not comply
with the briefing limitations enumerated in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. See, e.g.,
State Bank of S. Utah v. Beal, No. 20-00298, 2021 WL 1169659, at *1 (D. Utah Mar. 26, 2021)
(finding brief insufficient because it did not include a Rule 8015(h) certificate, among other
reasons); Cowan v. Vara, No. 19-20578, 2020 WL 2840069, at *1 n.2 (D.N.J. June 1, 2020)
(denying motion to strike brief because it included a valid Rule 8015(h) certificate and contained
11,787 words); Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Caribbean, Inc. v. Seda Ortiz, No. 07-1643, 2008 WL
11503511 (D.P.R. Mar. 24, 2008) (dismissing appeal for failure to comply with the federal rules
of appellate procedure including the respective type-volume limitation).
The appellant argues that the Court may enlarge his briefing limitation under the local rules
of this district. Local Rule 7.1 establishes a briefing limitation of 25 pages for briefs supporting a
motion or response and permits parties seeking to file a longer brief to apply to the Court ex parte
in writing setting forth their reasons for seeing to enlarge the briefing limitation. See E.D. Mich.
LR 7.1(d)(3). The brief the appellant filed is 70 pages, nearly three times the limitation established
by the local rules. Even if the appellant filed a compliant 13,000-word brief, it would significantly
exceed the applicable 25- or 30-page limit. The appellant does not adequately explain in his

-2-

Case 2:23-cv-10171-DML-EAS ECF No. 26, PageID.1704 Filed 06/30/23 Page 3 of 3

motion why he requires further excess briefing. The Court finds that the appellant can present the
necessary arguments in a brief that conforms with the already-expanded type-volume briefing
limitation permitted under Bankruptcy Rule 8015(a)(7)(B). See Fed. R. Bank. P. 8015 advisory
committee’s note (“Basing the calculation of brief length on either of the type-volume methods
specified in subdivision (a)(7)(B) will result in briefs that may exceed the designated page limits
in (a)(7)(A) and that may be approximately as long as allowed by the prior page limits.”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the appellant’s motion to enlarge the type-volume
briefing limitation (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall STRIKE the non-conforming brief of
appellant Michael E. Tindall (ECF No. 22).
It is further ORDERED that the appellant may file a brief that conforms with Rule 8015
of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure on or before July 7, 2023.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: June 30, 2023

-3-