Caffey v. Hildebrand

Filing 14

ORDER: The Second Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Doc. No. 13 ) is GRANTED and this case is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall TERM the remaining pending Motions (Doc. Nos. 2 & 7 ), and shall enter a final judgment in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 10/23/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ab)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
ROSALYN L. CAFFEY,
Plaintiff/Appellant,
v.
HENRY E. HILDEBRAND III,
Defendant/Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:17-cv-1129
Chief Judge Crenshaw

ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Second Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Doc. No. 13). The
first time around, Henry Hildebrand, III, the Chapter 13 Trustee, and Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, the
holder of a lien on property owned by Rosalyn L. Caffey, sought dismissal under Local Rule 81.01,
which provides for dismissal when an appellant fails to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 8009(a)(1).
Caffey failed to comply with Rule 8009 by neglecting to file a Statement of Issues within fourteen
days of the Notice of Appeal, and consequently her appeal was subject to dismissal at that time.
Nevertheless, and while she subsequently filed such a statement, she did not file her appellate brief
by October 9, 2017, as required by the Briefing Notice (Doc. 12) issued by the Clerk of this Court.
That failure prompted the present Motion. To date, Caffey has not file her appellate brief.
Caffey’s failure to comply with the briefing notice can hardly be characterized as a simple
mistake or oversight because she (1) has repeatedly ignored Orders and deadlines in other cases in
this Court, and (2) was found to have litigated in bad faith in the Bankruptcy Court. With regard
to the former, this is at least the fourth time that Caffey has failed to comply with this Court’s Local
Rules and the Bankruptcy Rules. In Caffey v. Hildebrand, 3:17-cv-00175, Caffey v. Hildebrand,
3:17-cv-00262, and Caffey v. Hildebrand, 3:17-cv-698, she failed to timely designate the record
1

and/or file a statement of issues as required by Bankruptcy Rule 8009. With regard to the latter,
Bankruptcy Judge Charles M. Walker entered an Order on July 6, 2017 that, not only dismissed
Caffey’s third Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, but also barred her from future filings in the Bankruptcy
Court because her persistent prosecution of a plan in violation of the Bankruptcy Code constituted
bad faith. (Doc. No. 7-1).
Caffey’s failure to comply with rules and procedures is part of a pattern that cannot be
excused or ignored. While the Court will not bar her from future filings at this time, the Court finds
dismissal of this action appropriate because she has twice ignored deadlines in this case.
Accordingly, the Second Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED and
this case is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall TERM the remaining pending
Motions (Doc. Nos. 2 & 7), and shall enter a final judgment in accordance with Rule 58 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2