In Re: Residential Funding Company, LLC et al

Filing 12

OPINION #105379. Appellants' motion to accept the appeal as timely filed is denied, and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. This resolves the motion in document number five in this case, 14-CV-1832. re: 5 MOTION that the Court accept this as an appeal filed timely pursuant to Rule 8009 of the Fed. R. Civ. P. filed by Sharon Jenkins, Marion L. Jenkins. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 3/25/2015) (rjm) Modified on 3/26/2015 (soh).

USDCSDNY

DOCUMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------X
In re Residential Funding Company, LLC

, ELECfRONICAILY FILED
· l"}OC #: --~~-:-:~

l DAfE FlLED: ·3 (1 Sit 5'
. ·~;:::e;;, t :;:;;:,: .. : . =·: :'"·-.::::: !!::''
S:::~·. :14 Civ. 1832
OPINION

-------------------------------------------X
Marion and Sharon Jenkins (appellants), acting prose, seek to
appeal from the January 24, 2014, and February 24, 2014 orders of
United States Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn in Marion L. Jenkins, et

al., v. Residential Funding Company, LLC, et al., Adv. Pro. No. 12-01935
(MG). Those orders dismissed their case against appellees Wells Fargo
Bank and U.S. Bank, among others.
Appellants' notice of appeal appeared on this court's docket on
March 17, 2014. Appellants then faced a March 31, 2014 deadline to file
their appeal brief, pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1) (2014)
(current version at Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(1) (2015)).
Appellants failed to serve or file an appeal brief. On September 18,
2014, appellees petitioned the court to dismiss appellants' appeal for
failure to comply with Rule 8009. On October 8, the court directed
appellants to serve or file their appeal brief within 30 days, or face
dismissal.
On November 7, 2014, appellants served the instant motion to
accept the appeal as timely. Appellees opposed on December 12, 2014.

Appellants' motion is denied, and the appeal is dismissed.
Discussion
Appellants ask the court not to dismiss the case because they
cannot afford a lawyer, and they continue to suffer from debts incurred
due to appellee's actions. However, appellants' motion does not cure the
fact that they have not served or filed an appeal brief, approximately one
year after it was due.
Submissions from prose litigants are held to a lower standard.
Accordingly, the court has shown great latitude. But here, appellants
have not communicated the legal basis of their appeal, long after the time
to do so passed. As a result, appellees have not responded, and the
court remains unable to fairly evaluate the merits of the appeal.
Furthermore, in their motion, appellants did not articulate any plan to
obtain counsel or otherwise begin diligently pursuing this appeal.
It is in no one's interest for this inchoate action to remain open

indefinitely. A district court may dismiss a bankruptcy appeal under
Rule 8009(a)(1) when the appeal brief is extremely late. See, e.g., In re

Best Payphones, Inc., 331 F. App'x 25, 26 (2d Cir. 2007) (affirming
dismissal of bankruptcy appeal where no brief filed eight months after
notice of appeal); In re Geaney, No. 08 Civ. 8208, 2011 WL 336464 at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2011) (dismissing prose bankruptcy appeal where no
brief filed two years after notice of appeal). Dismissal is appropriate
here.

Conclusion
Appellants' motion to accept the appeal as timely filed is denied,
and the appeal is dismissed with prejudice. This resolves the motion in
document number five in this case, 14-CV-1832.

Dated: New York, New York
March 25, 2015

bof,~'
Thomas P. Griesa
U.S.D.J.