Szanto v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Filing 17

ORDER denying 14 Motion for Leave of Court to Continue Proceedings in the Trial Court and to Enjoin Further Proceedings in this Court; granting 13 Motion to Extend Time to File Opening Brief. Opening brief due by 1/5/2015. There will be no further extensions. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 12/30/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
______________________________________
)
)
In re PETER SZANTO,
)
)
Debtor.
_____________________________________ )
)
)
PETER SZANTO,
)
)
Appellant,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
U.S. TRUSTEE, et al.,
)
)
Appellees.
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-00389-RCJ
Bankr. No. 13-bk-51261-GWZ
ORDER

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Debtor–Appellant Peter Szanto has filed several related cases in this Court. In 2011, he
sued his brother, his brother’s wife, and two of their business entities for, inter alia, alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty (Case No. 3:11-cv-394). In 2014, during the pendency of his
bankruptcy case (Case No. 13-bk-51261), Debtor–Appellant filed a civil complaint against the
U.S. Trustee for alleged civil rights violations (Case No. 3:14-cv-259). Also in 2014, Debtor–
Appellant moved to withdraw the reference of his bankruptcy case (Case No. 3:14-cv-322). The
Court denied that motion, because the bankruptcy case had been dismissed.
The present case is Debtor–Appellant’s appeal of the dismissal of his bankruptcy case.
Pending before the Court is Debtor–Appellant’s Motion for Leave of Court to Continue
1 of 3

1

Proceedings in the Trial Court and to Enjoin Further Proceedings in this Court (ECF No. 14).

2

Appellant argues that the Court should dismiss the appeal so that the Bankruptcy Court may

3

consider Plaintiff’s motion(s) to reconsider, because the case has been transferred to another

4

bankruptcy judge. Plaintiff argues that the transfer indicates an admission of bias by the

5

transferee judge.

6

Appellee JPMorgan Chase Bank opposes the motion, noting that when an appellant

7

desires a remand for reconsideration, he must first obtain a ruling from the lower court indicating

8

an intent to reconsider upon remand. See, e.g., Crateo, Inc. v. Intermark, Inc., 536 F.2d 862, 869

9

(9th Cir. 1975). There is no such indicative ruling in the record. Moreover, Appellee notes that

10

the transfer in this case was not a recusal, but an administrative transfer by the Clerk of the

11

Bankruptcy Court. The record confirms this, and nothing in the record indicates otherwise. The

12

Court denies the motion.
Next, Appellant asks the Court for an extension of time to file his opening brief. The

13
14

opening brief was originally due on September 21, 2014. The Court extended the date by one

15

week to September 29, 2014 by stipulation. The Court later extended the date an additional two

16

months to November 20, 2014 upon Appellant’s motion. On November 19, 2014, Appellant

17

filed the present motion indicating that the brief was “nearly finished” and requesting further

18

extension until December 19, 2014. It is December 24, 2014 as of this writing, and Appellant

19

has lodged no version of his opening brief. The Court will grant one final extension, two weeks

20

beyond the present one-month extension Plaintiff has requested, to January 5, 2015. There will

21

be no further extensions.

22

///

23

///

24
2 of 3

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Leave of Court to Continue Proceedings
in the Trial Court and to Enjoin Further Proceedings in this Court (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Extend Time to File Opening Brief (ECF

5

No. 13) is GRANTED. The Opening Brief is due January 5, 2015. There will be no further

6

extensions

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: This 30th day December, 2014.
Dated: This 24th day ofof December, 2014.

9
10
11

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3 of 3