Harper v. Schulte et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER: The Appellant's Emergency 2 MOTION for Extension of Time and MOTION for Expedited Hearing is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 3/29/2024. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (cly)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:24-cv-00072-MR
BANKRUPTCY CASE NO. 1-23-bk-10104

IN RE:

)
)
KIM LOUISE HARPER
)
_______________________________ )
)
KIM L. HARPER,
)
)
Appellant,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DAVID SCHULTE, VACATION
)
PROPERTIES, LLC, and PAT DOES )
1-10,
)
)
Appellees.
)
_______________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Appellant’s Emergency
Motion for Extension of Time and Motion for Expedited Hearing [Doc. 2].
The Appellant originally filed this action on March 15, 2024, noticing
her appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s March 15, 2024 Order [BK 23-10104,
Doc. 89] lifting an automatic stay against one of the Appellees, David
Schulte. [Doc. 1]. On March 25, 2024, the Appellant filed an “Emergency
Motion for Extension of Time through 03 April 2024 to file her Motion to Stay
the Order Lifting the Automatic Stay and Motion for Expedited Hearing.”

[Doc. 2]. This Court denied the Appellant’s Motion via text-only order on the
same day. [Text-Only Order entered March 25, 2024].
“Ordinarily, a party must move first in the bankruptcy court for . . . a
stay of a judgment, order, or decree of the bankruptcy court pending
appeal . . . or the suspension or continuation of proceedings in a case.” Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 8007(a)(1). A motion for such relief may be made in the district
court upon a showing that “moving first in the bankruptcy court would be
impracticable.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007(b)(2)(A). Such a motion must also
include . . . the reasons for granting the relief requested.” Fed. R. Bankr. P.
8007(b)(3)(A).
The Appellant here has made no indication either that she first moved
in the bankruptcy court for the relief sought, or that doing so would be
impracticable. As such, this Court lacks any legitimate basis for granting the
requested relief, and the Plaintiff’s motion must be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Appellant’s Emergency Motion
for Extension of Time and Motion for Expedited Hearing [Doc. 2] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: March 29, 2024

2