Pajarillo v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 17

ORDER Denying 15 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Opening brief due by 11/4/2013. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/9/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
Fidel Pajarillo,
4
5
6

Appellant,
vs.
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.

7
8

Appellees.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00674-GMN-CWH
ORDER

9
10

Pending before the Court is pro se Appellant Fidel Pajarillo’s Motion to Consolidate

11

Appeals (ECF No. 15) and concurrent request for extension of time to file his opening brief.

12

I. BACKGROUND

13

On April 22, 2013, a Notice of Appeal from Bankruptcy Court (ECF No. 1) was entered

14

before this Court as a result of an Election to Transfer (ECF No. 1-14) filed by Appellees

15

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and California Reconveyance Company pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

16

§ 158(c)(1), Rule 8001(e)(1) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and Rule 8001(e)-1

17

of the Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit (“the

18

BAP”). See 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(e)(1); 9th Cir. BAP R. 8001(e)-1.

19

In his appeal, Appellant requests review of a March 2013 order of Judge Bruce Markell

20

of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada, entered in Appellant’s

21

Chapter 13 bankruptcy case (“the underlying case”). (Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 1-5; Am.

22

Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 1-15.)

23

and the Chapter 13 trustee had been discharged. (Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 1-5.) The order

24

closing the case cited Appellant’s failure to make plan payments as a basis for discharge, in

25

addition to Appellant’s repeated failure to comply with procedural requirements and to make

The underlying case had been closed in November 2012

Page 1 of 3

1

required appearances. (Id.) More than two months after the underlying case was closed,

2

Appellant filed a Motion to Reopen Case and Judge Markell denied it in March 2013. (Id.)

3

Appellant filed a deficient Notice of Appeal to the BAP, and before the BAP disposed of the

4

appeal on the basis of Appellant’s failure to remedy the deficiency, Appellees filed their

5

Election to Transfer (ECF No. 1-14).

6

Upon the filing of the Notice of Appeal before this Court, Appellant was ordered to file

7

his opening brief in June 2013, and he subsequently sought and obtained four extensions, the

8

most recent of which set a deadline of September 30, 2013. (Min. Order, May 17, 2013, ECF

9

No. 6; First Mot. to Extend Time, ECF No. 7; Order, June 3, 2013, ECF No. 8; Second Mot. to

10

Extend Time, ECF No. 9; Third Mot. to Extend Time, ECF No. 10; Order, Aug. 1, 2013, ECF

11

No. 12; Fourth Mot. to Extend Time, ECF No. 13; Order, Sept. 19, 2013, ECF No. 14.)

12

However, instead of filing an opening brief, Appellant filed the instant Motion to Consolidate

13

(ECF No. 15) on September 26, 2013, referring to two other bankruptcy appeals he had filed

14

before the BAP, and for which no party has apparently elected to transfer.

15

II. DISCUSSION

16

Here, the Court finds that Appellant has presented no legal authority or claims justifying

17

a consolidation of the instant appeal with any other case pending in any other court. Even if

18

Appellant had sufficiently cited the appeals to which he refers, Appellant’s conclusory

19

statement that “[t]hese appeals generally involve the same properties and parties,” without

20

more, present no basis for the Court to consolidate the instant appeal with any other case.

21

Therefore, the Court cannot grant Appellant’s request, and must deny his Motion to

22

Consolidate (ECF No. 15.)

23

In addition, Appellant conclusorily argues that “[t]he schedule for briefing should be

24

adjusted accordingly,” and fails to present any cause for the Court’s grant of any further

25

extensions to the deadline for the filing of his opening brief. This is insufficient to constitute

Page 2 of 3

1

“good cause” for a fifth extension. Notwithstanding this failure, and in recognition of

2

Appellant’s pro se status, the Court will grant Appellant twenty-one days from the date of this

3

Order to file his opening brief. The Court finds that Appellant’s reliance on his pro se status as

4

his sole excuse for multiple procedural violations will no longer be sufficient to justify any

5

further relief. The rules governing bankruptcy appeals are all publicly available1, and

6

Appellant’s failure to comply with these rules has developed into an apparent demonstration of

7

bad faith.

8
9

Accordingly, without more, the Court cannot find good cause for further noncompliance, and will grant no further extensions. Appellant’s failure to file his opening brief

10

by November 4, 2013, and any further failure to comply with procedural requirements, will

11

result in dismissal of his appeal with prejudice, and this case will be closed.

12

III. CONCLUSION

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Consolidate Appeals (ECF No. 15) is

14

DENIED.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant shall file his Opening Brief by November

16

4, 2013. Failure to do so by this date will result in dismissal of the appeal, and this case will be

17

closed.

18
19

DATED this 9th day of October, 2013.

20
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25

1

See United States Code, Title 28, 28 U.S.C. §§ 157–158, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure, the Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth
Circuit, and the website for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada,
available at http://www.nvb.uscourts.gov.
Page 3 of 3