Cao et al v. Jones et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum & Order, appellants' application for extension of time is denied and the appeal is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order and the judgment to pro se appellants, note service on the docket, and close the case. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 3/21/2019. (Abugo, Uzezi)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------x
ZHAN W. CAO and J.C. INVESTOR, LLC,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
17-cv-7568(KAM)

Appellants,
-againstLORI LAPIN JONES and PROVIDENCE RIDGE
ASSOCIATES, LP,

Defendant.
----------------------------------x
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
Zhan W. Cao and J.C. Investor, LLC, an LLC of which
Zhan Cao is a member (together “Appellants”), filed this pro se
appeal on December 27, 2017, appealing the denial of an
Application for Order to Show Cause in the bankruptcy proceeding
entitled In re Asian Expandere, Inc., No. 14-42243, in the
bankruptcy court in the Eastern District of New York.
Appellants are shareholders of Asian Expandere, Inc. (“AEI”),
the debtor in the underlying Chapter 7 bankruptcy action.
Appellee Lori Lapin Jones (the “Trustee”), is the courtappointed trustee of the bankruptcy estate in the underlying
bankruptcy action, and appellee Providence Ridge Associates, LP
(“Providence Ridge”) is an unsecured creditor of AEI.

Pending

before the court is appellants’ Motion for Extension of Time to
1

file a brief in support of their appeal.
for Extension of Time.)

(See ECF No. 5, Motion

For the reasons stated below, the court

denies appellants’ motion for extension of time and dismisses
the case.
I.

Background

a. Procedural Background
AEI filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition on May 2,
2014, and on August 1, 2014, the bankruptcy court issued an
order converting the case to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.
On March 11, 2016, the Trustee filed a final report and proposed
distribution of the bankruptcy estate and application for
compensation (the “Final Report”).

See Dkt. No. 93, Final

Report, In re Asian Expandere, No. 14-42243 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.
Mar. 11, 2016).

The Final Report proposed a payment of

$163,765.00 to Providence Ridge based on Providence Ridge’s
unsecured claim for $323,032.32.

(Id. at 9.)

The Trustee found

Providence Ridge’s entire claim to be allowed, but reduced the
amount to be disbursed to a proposed payment of $163,765.00,
after payments for administrative expenses and payments to
priority creditors, exhausted the balance of the bankruptcy
estate.

Id. at 8-9.
On March 14, 2016, Li Ping Cao and Zhan Peng Cao, by

counsel, filed a motion objecting to Providence Ridge’s claim
against the bankruptcy estate.

See Dkt. No. 99, Notice of
2

Shareholders’ Objection to Providence Claim, In re Asian
Expandere, No. 14-42243 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2016).

In

their motion, Li Ping Cao and Zhan Peng Cao identified
themselves as “equity shareholders” of AEI.

Id. at 1.

On April

28, 2016, Li Ping Cao and Zhan Peng Cao filed affidavits in
support of the objection.

In their respective affidavits, Li

Ping Cao identified himself as the president of AEI and Zhan
Peng Cao identified himself as the vice president of AEI. See
Dkt. No. 107, Zhan Peng Cao Aff. at 1, In re Asian Expandere,
Case No. 14-42243, at 1 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. April 28, 2016); Dkt.
No. 109, Li Ping Cao Aff. at 1, In re Asian Expandere, No. 1442243 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. April 28, 2016).

On the same day, Zhan

W. Cao, the individual appellant in the instant appeal, filed a
pro se affidavit in support of the objection wherein she
identified herself as a “[s]tock holder of [AEI] since May 1,
2014.”

See Dkt. No. 108, Zhan W. Cao Aff. at 1, In re Asian

Expandere, No. 14-42243, at 1 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. April 28, 2016).
On April 28, 2016, the bankruptcy court held a hearing
on the Final Report and the shareholders’ motion objecting to
Providence Ridge’s claim.

See Dkt. No. 121, Tr. of Hearing

Before Bankruptcy Court, In re Asian Expandere, No. 14-42243
(Bankr. E.D.N.Y. April 28, 2016).

At that hearing, Li Ping Cao,

Zhan Peng Cao and Zhan W. Cao appeared pro se and were heard,
along with the Trustee and Providence Ridge.
3

Id. at 5:1-25,

49:20-58:21.

On May 6, 2016, the bankruptcy court issued an

order approving the Final Report and dismissing the objections
to Providence Ridge’s claim.

The bankruptcy court ordered that

any distribution to Providence Ridge be held in escrow until the
bankruptcy court received, “(a) an Order of a court of competent
jurisdiction or (b) presentation of a joint direction letter
executed by (i) Providence Ridge, (ii) Li Ping Cao and (iii)
Zhan Peng Cao.”

See Dkt. No. 112, Order Approving Trustee’s

Final Report at 1-2, In re Asian Expandere, No. 14-42243 (Bankr.
E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2016). 1
On June 6, 2016, Zhan W. Cao, Li Ping Cao and Zhan
Peng Cao filed a pro se application for an emergency order to
show cause requesting that the bankruptcy court reconsider the
Claim Objection Motion.

See Dkt. 114, Emergency Order to Show

Cause on Behalf of Shareholders of the Debtor to Request this
Court Granting Shareholders’ Emergency Order to Show Cause, to
Make a Decision on Dennis O’Sullivan Shareholders’ Objection to
Providence’s Invalid Claim, Thereafter, Reconsider and Reargue
and/or Amend the Decision Made on May 6, 2016 by this Court
Which is No Need of (“Application for Order to Show Cause”), In
re Asian Expandere, No. 14-42243 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2016).
1

In the Final Report, the Trustee found that AEI filed for bankruptcy in
order to avoid an adverse judgment in a pending Pennsylvania fraud action.
See Dkt. No. 93-1, Case Narrative, In re Asian Expandere, No. 14-42243
(Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2016).

4

On June 21, 2016, the Trustee objected to the Application for
Order to Show Cause, arguing that the application was filed
seventeen days after the fourteen-day period to appeal the
bankruptcy court’s May 6, 2016 Order approving the Trustee’s
Final Report and was untimely.

See Dkt. 123, Trustee’s

Objection to the Application for Order to Show Cause at 1-2, In
re Asian Expandere, No. 14-42243, at 1-2 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. June
21, 2016).

Further, the Trustee argued that the application was

an impermissible collateral attack on the May 16, 2016 order.
Id. at 2.

The Trustee also argued that the Application for

Order to Show Cause was moot because, “the Trustee already made
the distribution in accordance with the May 6, 2016 Order and
there [were] no funds left in the Debtor’s estate for the
Trustee to administer.”

Id.

On June 22, 2016, Providence Ridge

joined the Trustee’s objection to the application.

See Dkt. No.

93-1, Case Narrative, In re Asian Expandere, No. 14-42243
(Bankr. E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2016).
From June 22, 2016 to November 2, 2017 the bankruptcy
court granted Zhan W. Cao’s ten requests on behalf of herself
and J.C. Investor, LLC, for extensions of time to file a
response to the Trustee’s and Providence Ridge’s objections to
her Application for Order to Show Cause.

On July 20, 2017,

Providence Ridge filed a supplemental objection to the
Application for Order to Show Cause, informing the court that
5

the escrow agent had distributed $163,765.70 to Providence Ridge
in accordance with the court’s May 6, 2016 order, after the
Pennsylvania state Court entered summary judgment in favor of
Providence Ridge against AEI in the amount of $163,765.70 on
July 7, 2017. See Dkt. No. 169, Supplemental Objection to
Application for Order to Show Cause at 2, In re Asian Expandere,
No. 14-42243 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. July 7, 2017).)

Providence Ridge

argued that the distribution of assets following the state
court’s summary judgment decision rendered the Application for
Order to Show Cause moot.

(Id.)

On November 2, 2017, Zhan W. Cao filed her eleventh
request for an extension of time and sought an adjournment of
the hearing scheduled for her Application for Order to Show
Cause.

(See Dkt. No. 175, Motion for Extension at 2, In re

Asian Expandere, No. 14-42243 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2017).)
As reasons for needing an extension, Zhan W. Cao cited (1)
continued difficulty securing an attorney, (2) an unspecified
medical condition and the need for additional recovery time, and
(3) the need for additional time to conduct research.
2-3.)

(Id. at

The bankruptcy court heard argument on Zhan W. Cao’s

request for an extension on November 8, 2017, and Zhan W. Cao
appeared pro se. 2

2

On November 14, 2017, the bankruptcy court

The bankruptcy court’s November 14, 2017 order incorrectly states that Li
Ping Cao appeared and was heard at the November 8, 2017, when in fact it was

6

denied the motion for extension of time, and on November 29,
2017, the bankruptcy court issued an order denying the
Application for An Order to Show Cause.

See Dkt No. 180, Order

Denying Motion to Extend Time at 2, In re Asian Expandere, No.
14-42243 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017); Dkt No. 183, Order
Denying Application for Order to Show Cause at 2, No. 14-42243
(Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2017).
A. Appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s Denial of
Motion to Extend Time
On December 15, 2017, Zhan W. Cao filed a notice of
appeal on behalf of herself and J.C. Investor, LLC appealing
from the bankruptcy court’s November 14, 2017 order denying
their motion for an extension of time to respond to the
opposition to their Application for an emergency order to show
cause. ECF No. 1, Notice of Appeal, Cao v. Jones, No. 17-CV7407(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017).
appeal pro se.

Zhan W. Cao filed the notice of

In her “[b]rief statement of cause,” Zhan W. Cao

stated that the November 14, 2017 order should be reversed
because the court improperly denied the extension despite Zhan
W. Cao needing the extension for a medical problem and J.C.
Investor needing to be represented by an attorney.

Id. at 2.

Zhan W. Cao also argued that appellants had a meritorious

Zhan W. Cao who appeared.

7

defense and a prima facie case showing that they were entitled
to the money that was disbursed to Providence Ridge.

Id.

Finally, Zhan W. Cao, argued that the court made a “major error
in names” wherein the court incorrectly noted that Li Ping Cao
appeared and was heard before the court on November 8, 2016,
when in fact it was Zhan W. Cao who appeared.

On February

Id.

7, 2018, the parties were notified that the bankruptcy court
record had been received and was available electronically.

ECF

No. 2, Notice of Bankruptcy Record, Cao v. Jones, No. 17-CV-7407
(E.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2018).
Under Rule 8018 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy,
appellants must serve and file a brief supporting their appeal
within thirty days of the docketing of notice that the record
has been transmitted or is available electronically.
Bankr. P. 8018(a)(1).

Fed. R.

Pursuant to Rule 8018, appellants’ brief

was due by March 9, 2018.

On March 8, 2018, Appellants filed a

letter motion requesting an extension of time to file the brief.
ECF No. 4, Motion for Extension, Cao v. Jones, No. 17-CV-7407
(E.D.N.Y. March 8, 2018).
15, 2018.

The Court granted an extension to May

ECF No. 5, Order Granting Extension, Cao v. Jones,

No. 17-CV-7407 (E.D.N.Y. March 15, 2018).

On May 16, 2018,

appellants filed another letter motion requesting an extension
of time to serve their brief of at least two months.

ECF No. 6,

Motion for Extension, Cao v. Jones, No. 17-CV-7407 (E.D.N.Y. May
8

16, 2018).

The Court again granted an extension of time to

file, to June 29, 2018.

ECF No. 7, Motion for Extension, Cao v.

Jones, No. 17-CV-7407 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2018).

On August 17,

2018, appellants filed their third motion for extension of time
and requested at least three additional months to file their
brief.

ECF No. 8, Motion for Extension, Cao v. Jones, No. 17-

CV-7407 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2018).
In each of appellants’ requests for an extension, they
cited similar reasons to those they cited in their eleven
requests for extensions before the bankruptcy court: (1) they
needed additional time to conduct legal research, (2) they
needed additional time due to Zhan W. Cao’s medical issues, and
(3) they needed additional time to find an attorney to represent
J.C. Investor, LLC, as the entity could not represent itself pro
se. 3
On August 27, 2018, Judge Glasser denied appellants’
third motion for extension of time to file their brief and
dismissed the appeal sua sponte for four reasons: (1) the appeal

3

Both requests for an extension of time in the instant case and the three
requests for an extension in the case decided by Judge Glasser were
accompanied by almost identical doctor’s notes from Tsai C. Chao, M.D., and
stated that Zhan W. Cao is “[t]otally [i]ncapacitated” due to a variety of
maladies—including, among other things, (i) “[p]ost cerebral concussion
syndrome with impaired memory,” (ii) “[s]evere dizziness and vertigo,” and
(iii) “impaired ambulation.” The only thing changed from request to request
was the date the note was issued and the date Zhan W. Cao’s disability would
be reevaluated.

9

was untimely, (2) the notice of appeal was void or voidable as
to appellant J.C. Investor, LLC, as the notice of appeal was not
filed by an attorney, (3) appellants failed to prosecute their
appeal without providing compelling reason for their failure,
and (4) appellants’ appeal from the bankruptcy court’s denial of
appellants’ eleventh request for an extension of time was
frivolous.

See ECF No. 9, Memorandum & Order at 1-4, No. 17-CV-

7407 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2018).
B. Appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s Denial of the
Application for an Order to Show Cause
On December 27, 2017, Appellants filed a notice of
appeal in which they appealed the bankruptcy court’s November
29, 2017, order denying appellants’ Application for an Order to
Show Cause.

The December 27, 2017 appeal sought reconsideration

of the order denying appellants’ motion objecting to the Final
Report, following the denial of the request for an extension,
which appellants appealed before Judge Glasser.
Appeal, ECF No. 1).

(See Notice of

Appellants’ notice of appeal from the order

denying the Application for an Order to Show Cause did not
disclose the appeal then pending before Judge Glasser, and the
cases are not classified as related.

Both the instant appeal

and the appeal dismissed by Judge Glasser arise from the same
initial Application for an Order to Show Cause.
Under Rule 8018 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy,
10

Appellants’ brief in their appeal was due on or before March 9,
2018.

On March 8, 2018, Zhan W. Cao filed a motion for an

extension of time to file their brief. (See ECF No. 4, Motion
for Extension.)

The court granted the motion for an extension

of time and ordered appellants to file their brief by August 17,
2018.

On August 17, 2018, Zhan W. Cao filed a second motion for

an extension of time requesting a three-month extension of time
citing (1) ongoing medical issues, (2) the need to consult with
an attorney for herself, (3) the need for additional time to
conduct additional research and (4) the need to find an attorney
to represent J.C. Investor, LLC.
Extension, at 1-2.)

(See ECF No. 5, Motion for

Appellants’ requests for extensions in the

appeal before this court are substantially identical to the
requests in the appeal dismissed by Judge Glasser.
II.

Legal Standard

Under Fed. R. Bankr. P. Rule 8018(a)(4), a district
court may, upon notice, dismiss a bankruptcy appeal sua sponte
if an appellant fails to file a brief in support of the appeal
within thirty days after the docketing of notice that the record
has been transmitted or within another period of time authorized
by the court.

Further, a district court has the inherent power

to dismiss a case, sua sponte, if it determines that the action
is frivolous or the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.
Fitzgerald v. First East Seventh Street Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d
11

362, 363-364 (2d Cir. 2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
III.

Discussion

The court denies appellants’ pending motion for an
additional extension of time and dismisses the underlying appeal
of the bankruptcy court’s denial of their Order to Show Cause.
The instant appeal is dismissed due to appellants failure to
file their brief by August 17, 2018 and because this appeal is
frivolous and touches on the same issues raised in the appeal
before Judge Glasser.

Both appellants have failed to prosecute

their appeal since it was filed in December of 2017, and
appellants’ appeal from the determination of the bankruptcy
court appears meritless.
Based upon a review of the underlying record, the
court finds that the appeal is untimely, and accordingly, is
dismissed.

In re Lynch, 430 F.3d 600, 604 (2d Cir. 2005)

(affirming district court’s denial of bankruptcy appeal as
untimely where plaintiff failed to show excusable neglect for
failure to appeal in a timely fashion.)

In accordance with Rule

8002(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the May
6, 2016 order approving the Trustee’s plan and denying the claim
objection became final and appealable on May 20, 2016.

See Also

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023 (“A motion for a new trial or to alter or
amend a judgment shall be filed, and a court may on its own
order a new trial, no later than 14 days after entry of
12

Shareholders Zhan W. Cao, Li Ping Cao and Zhan

judgment.”).

Peng Cao did not file the application for order to show cause
until June 6, 2016.

On June 21, 2016, the Trustee objected to

the Application, correctly noting that the application was filed
seventeen days after the time to appeal the bankruptcy court’s
May 6, 2016 Order approving the Trustee’s Final Report had
passed and was thereby untimely.

See Dkt. 123, Trustee’s

Objection to the Application for Order to Show Cause at 1-2, No.
14-42243 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2016).

Further, the Trustee

argued that the application was an impermissible collateral
attack on the May 16, 2016 order.

(Id. at 2.)

The Trustee also

argued that the Application for Order to Show Cause was moot
because, “the Trustee already made the distribution in
accordance with the May 6, 2016 Order and there [were] no funds
left in the Debtor’s estate for the Trustee to administer.”

In

response, Zhan W. Cao failed to respond and instead filed eleven
requests for extensions for time to oppose the Trustee’s
objection.

There was no showing of excusable neglect.

“Where,

as here, no excusable neglect was shown, the late filing is not
permitted.”

In re Lynch, 430 F.3d at 605.

The appeal is dismissed as to J.C. Investor LLC,
because it failed to retain counsel to represent it in the
instant appeal, and may not proceed pro se.

“It has been the

law for the better part of two centuries . . . that a
13

corporation may appear in the federal courts only through
licensed counsel.”

See Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit

II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 201–02 (1993)
(citations omitted).

The Second Circuit has interpreted 29

U.S.C. § 1654, which governs appearances in federal court, “to
allow two types of representation: ‘that by an attorney admitted
to the practice of law by a governmental regulatory body and
that by a person representing himself.’”

Samuel Adams

Enterprises, LLC v. Mountain One Bank, No. 13-CV-5151, 2013 WL
6712566, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2013) (citing Lattanzio v.
COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 2007).

Limited liability

companies (“LLCs”) are not exempt from this rule and a limited
liability company may only appear in federal court through a
licensed attorney.

Id.

“In particular, this rule has been

applied to dismiss any action or motion filed by a corporation
purporting to act pro se.”

Oberstein v. SunPower Corp., No. 07-

CV-1155, 2008 WL 630073, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2008) (citing
Grace v. Bank Leumi Tr. Co. of NY, 443 F.3d 180, 192 (2d Cir.
2006)) (internal quotations omitted).

Although there is a

limited exception for sole proprietorships, it does not apply
here.

Id.
In Asian Expandere, Inc. v. Jones, AEI appealed from a

prior order in the same bankruptcy action underlying the instant
action.

See Asian Expandere, Inc. v. Jones, No. 15-CV-4043,
14

Notice of Appeal (E.D.N.Y. July 10, 2015).

There, the court

dismissed the appeal, citing, among other reasons, that Ei Ping
Cao, the individual who filed the appeal on behalf of AEI, was a
non-attorney shareholder and could not act pro se on behalf of
AEI, a corporation.

See Asian Expandere, Inc. v. Jones, No. 15-

CV-4043, Memorandum and Order, at 2 (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2015).
The court stated, “Ei Ping Cao is cautioned that if he continues
to purport to act for an entity as to which he has no legal
authority to act, there may be serious consequences, including a
finding of contempt of court.”

The same applies to Zhan W.

Cao’s attempt to file an appeal and seek adjournments on behalf
of J.C. Investor, LLC, in the instant appeal.
This action should also be dismissed for failure to
prosecute.

Appellants have sought to delay, without any showing

of good cause, their filing of a brief in support of their
appeal.

Their second request for an extension of time to file a

brief, in light of their prior motions in this appeal, their
appeal before Judge Glasser and in the underlying bankruptcy
case, does not provide a compelling reason for their failure.
Under Rule 8018 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure,
appellants’ brief was initially due by March 9, 2018, thirty
days after the docketing of notice that the bankruptcy record
had been received.
Record.)

(See ECF No. 2, Notice of Electronic

Their first request for an extension of time was filed
15

on March 8, 2018 and an extension was granted until August 17,
2018.

Their second request for an extension was filed on August

17, 2018, over five months after the brief was initially due,
and sought an additional three months, which the court denies.
Appellants’ failure to meet the extended deadline to
file their brief was not the result of excusable neglect,
pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b), and does not warrant an
additional extension.

“The Supreme Court has interpreted the

excusable neglect standard to permit courts to accept late
filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as
well as by intervening circumstances beyond the party's
control.”

Carlebach v. Tyrnauer, No. 15-CV-5610, 2016 WL

5349781, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2016) (citing Pioneer Inv.
Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 388
(1993)) (internal quotations omitted).
Factors to be considered in evaluating excusable
neglect include [1] the danger of prejudice to the
[non-movant], [2] the length of the delay and its
potential impact on judicial proceedings, [3] the
reason for the delay, including whether it was within
the reasonable control of the movant, and [4] whether
the movant acted in good faith.
Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 333 F.3d 355, 366 (2d Cir.
2003) (citation and internal quotations omitted).
Applying the above factors, the court finds that
appellants repeated requests for extension of time have caused
delays which prejudice the appellees.
16

Secondly, the delay has

also resulted in an inability to conclude this judicial
proceeding, which appears to be closely related to, or
intertwined with, the previous appeal that was dismissed by
Judge Glasser in 17-CV-07407.

Third, the reasons for the delay

articulated by the appellants are the same reasons proffered
over the many requests for extensions in the bankruptcy court
and in appeals before the district court.

Fourth, in the

instant action, appellants have shown a clear lack of good faith
and have provided no credible reason for why it was not within
their power to file a brief.

The order from which appellants

appeal pertains to the same order in which the bankruptcy court
denied their eleventh request for an extension of time to file a
brief in the bankruptcy court action.

The record reveals that

the reasons appellants cited for their delay here are
substantially the same reasons for failing to file a brief that
they cited for over two years in bankruptcy court, and cited in
another appeal relating to the same underlying bankruptcy
action.

Given the repetition of the same excuses over an

extended period of time, appellants’ reasons for delaying filing
do not appear to be genuine, and certainly are not “good cause”
for delay.

Further, allowing appellants to continue engaging

appellees in litigation over an already distributed bankruptcy
estate, when they have demonstrated no intention of moving the
action forward, prejudices appellees.
17

As such, the court may

dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute.

See Fed. R.

Bankr. P. 8018(a)(4).
Finally, in addition to being an impermissible and
untimely attack on the bankruptcy’s court May 16, 2016 Order,
the instant appeal lacks merit.

Appellants appeal the

bankruptcy court’s November 29, 2017 order denying the
appellants’ Application for an Order to Show Cause, which sought
reconsideration of the bankruptcy court’s May 6, 2016 Order
denying the appellants’ objection to the Trustee’s Final Report
and confirming the Final Report.

Appellants allege that the

record in the bankruptcy proceeding established that appellants
were the only parties entitled to the money distributed in the
bankruptcy proceeding and that the court failed to review the
full record, as the court omitted a transcript of a hearing on
April 28, 2016 and an amended affidavit filed by Zhan Peng Cao
on July 11, 2017 in its November 29, 2017 denial of the
application for order to show cause.
support of these assertions.

No evidence was cited in

Further, the bankruptcy court

decision refers to the April 28, 2016 hearing that appellants
claim the court “failed to review,” and stated that “noting the
full, complete, and extensive record before the Court, and based
on the entire record, the Shareholders’ Application is denied.”
Order Denying Application for Order to Show Cause at 2, In re
Asian Expandere, No. 14-BK-42243. The court has considered
18

appellants remaining assertions on appeal and finds them without
merit.
IV.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, appellants’ application for
extension of time is denied and the appeal is dismissed. The
Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, to
mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order and the judgment to pro
se appellants, note service on the docket, and close the case.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 21, 2019
Brooklyn, New York

/s/
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge

19