In re: Alexander McLaren
Filing
59
ORDER denying Appellants' 55 Motion for extention of time. Respondents' motion to dismiss appeal 53 & 56 is GRANTED. This appeal is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (PM) cc: pro se appellants
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
5
6
ALEXANDER McLAREN, et al.,
7
Appellants,
C14-575 TSZ
8
9
v.
ORDER
PETER H. ARKISON, et al.,
10
Respondents.
11
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the motion of respondents Thomas
12
Hsueh, Triton Engineering, Inc., and Triton-America, LLC (collectively, “Triton”) to
13
dismiss this bankruptcy appeal, docket no. 53, which was joined by respondent Peter H.
14
Arkison, trustee in the bankruptcy case of appellant Alexander McLaren, docket no. 56.
15
Having reviewed the motion and joinder, as well as appellants’ motion for extension of
16
time, docket no. 55, and the response thereto, docket no. 57, the Court hereby ORDERS:
17
(1)
Appellants’ motion for extension of time, docket no. 55, is DENIED.
18
Appellants’ opening brief was due on June 30, 2015. Appellants did not seek an
19
extension of this due date until August 3, 2015, over a month after the deadline had
20
expired and almost three weeks after Triton moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to
21
prosecute. Appellants’ request for an extension is untimely. See Local Civil Rule 7(j).
22
23
ORDER - 1
1 Moreover, appellants’ motion is without merit. Even if appellant Alexander McLaren
2 had medical reasons for not timely submitting an opening brief, appellants Thomas
3 McLaren and Ruth Edwards cannot rely on such grounds and have provided no excuse
4 for failing to file an opening brief.1 Alexander McLaren’s contention that his health
5 impeded his ability to timely file an opening brief is unsupported by credible evidence.
6 The hand-written note from Reza Hosseini Ghomi, MD, a copy of which is attached to
7 appellants’ motion for extension, see docket no. 55 at 7, is not dated, does not indicate
8 when or why Alexander McLaren was hospitalized, and provides no timeframe for the
9 90-day period during which he “should avoid physical and mental exertion.” The hand10 written note is also not consistent with Alexander McLaren’s assertion that he was
11 hospitalized for a “life-threatening pulmonry [sic] condition,” Mtn. at 3 (docket no. 55),
12 given that Dr. Ghomi is a resident physician at the University of Washington in the
13 Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Department, see http://www.rezahosseinighomi.com/
14 about.html; see also Resp. at 9 (docket no. 57), and is not a pulmonologist, primary care
15 physician, or similar practitioner.
16
17
18
1
The additional appeals that Thomas McLaren and Ruth Edwards have recently filed do not provide any
basis for delaying the briefing schedule in this matter, particularly when one of those cases has already
19 been dismissed for failure to prosecute, see Order (docket no. 6, C15-741-MJP), an order to show cause
has been issued in another matter, see Order (docket no. 6, C15-740-JCC), and notices of deficiency have
been entered in the two other appeals, see Notice (docket no. 4, C15-809-RSM); Notice (docket no. 4,
20 C15-810-JCC). Among the deficiencies identified in each of the four recent appeals was the failure to
pay the requisite filing fee. To the extent Thomas McLaren and Ruth Edwards seek to have the appellate
21 filing fees waived, they must file motions in the appropriate cases; the undersigned cannot grant relief in
cases assigned to other judges.
22
23
ORDER - 2
1
(2)
Respondents’ motion to dismiss appeal, docket nos. 53 & 56, is
2 GRANTED. This appeal is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.
3
(3)
The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case and to send a copy of this
4 Order to all counsel of record and to appellants pro se.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated this 19th day of August, 2015.
7
A
8
9
Thomas S. Zilly
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDER - 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?