Schwerdtfeger et al v. Petrie et al
Filing
6
ORDER, signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 03/27/2013. The appellants shall comply with Rule 8006 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and must file with the clerk and serve on the appellee a designation of the items to be included in the record on appeal and a statement of the issues to be presented within 10 days of the date of this order. In addition, because the brief filed by the appellants contains no citations to the record, the Clerk is ordered to STRIKE the appellants brief (ECF No. 3) and the response filed by the appellees (ECF No. 5). In accordance with Rule 8009, the Court hereby VACATES the existing briefing schedule and specifies the timing for refiling the briefs as follows: (1) the appellants brief shal l be served and filed within 14 days of the receipt of the transmission of the record by the clerk of the district court; (2) the appellees brief shall be served and filed within 14 days after service of the brief of the appellant; and (3) the appell ant may serve and file a reply brief within 14 days after service of the brief of the appellee. The Clerk is further ordered to remove from the calendar the telephone status conference currently scheduled for April 2, 2013. SEE ORDER FOR FULL DETAIL. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PAULA SCHWERDTFEGER and
CHADWICK PAUL SCHWERDTFEGER,
Appellants,
v.
Case No. 13-C-0085
ALLEN L. PETRIE and GAYLE M. PETRIE,
Apellees.
ORDER
Allen and Gayle Petrie brought an adversary proceeding before the bankruptcy court seeking
an order directing that their claims against Paula Schwerdtfeger and Chadwick Schwerdtfeger be
nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), or that discharge be denied under 11 U.S.C.
§ 727(a)(2). After a two-day trial, the bankruptcy court issued an oral decision holding that the
Petrie’s claim against the Schwerdtfegers was nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6), and awarded
judgment in favor of the Petries. The Schwerdtfegers appealed the decision of the bankruptcy court,
and the matter is before me now.
During the course of its brief existence thus far, the appeal has suffered from numerous
errors. To begin with, the Schwerdtfegers neglected to file with the clerk or serve on the appellees
a designation of the items to be included in the record on appeal and a statement of the issues to be
presented, as required by Rule 8006 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Fed. R. Bankr.
P. 8006 (“Within 14 days after filing the notice of appeal as provided by Rule 8001(a) . . . the
appellant shall file with the clerk and serve on the appellee a designation of the items to be included
in the record on appeal and a statement of the issues to be presented.” (emphasis added)). Rule
8006 plainly provides that the record on appeal “shall include the items so designated by the parties,
the notice of appeal, the judgment, order, or decree appealed from, and any opinion, findings of fact,
and conclusions of law of the court.” Id. (emphasis added). The Schwerdtfegers also failed to
arrange for a transcript of the trial as provided for in Rule 8007. The only documents transmitted
to this Court were the notice of appeal and the docket in the bankruptcy case below.
The Schwerdtfegers nevertheless filed their appellant’s brief on February 7, 2013. Not
surprisingly, the brief contains no citations to the record. In addition, the Petries contributed to the
delinquency of this proceeding in that, without explanation, they filed their appellee’s brief more
than a month late. Rule 8009 provides that “[t]he appellee shall serve and file a brief within 14 days
after service of the brief of appellant.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(2) (emphasis added). The Petries
filed their brief on March 26, 2013.
District courts have broad discretion to sanction parties when appropriate. In re Matter of
Scheri, 51 F.3d 71, 76 (7th Cir. 1995). Rule 8001 provides that “failure to take any step other than
timely filing a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for such
action as the district court . . . deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal.” Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 8001(a). Thus, courts may take such action as they deem appropriate when
determining whether to dismiss an appeal due to missing designations and statements of issues on
appeal. However, dismissal is a severe sanction, and a court may overlook such failures for good
cause. See id. at 75.
2
At this point, I decline to dismiss the appeal. To the extent that the parties have failed to
avail themselves of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure or of this District’s Local Rules
regarding electronically filing pleadings and other papers, they should familiarize themselves
posthaste before attempting to continue to represent their clients before this Court. The parties are
hereby warned that further failure to comply with the rules or the orders of this Court may result in
sanctions, including dismissal of this appeal.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the appellants shall comply with Rule 8006 of
the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and must file with the clerk and serve on the appellee
a designation of the items to be included in the record on appeal and a statement of the issues to be
presented within 10 days of the date of this order. In addition, because the brief filed by the
appellants contains no citations to the record, the Clerk is ordered to strike the appellant’s brief
(ECF No. 3) and the response filed by the appellees (ECF No. 5). In accordance with Rule 8009,
the Court hereby vacates the existing briefing schedule and specifies the timing for refiling the
briefs as follows: (1) the appellant’s brief shall be served and filed within 14 days of the receipt of
the transmission of the record by the clerk of the district court; (2) the appellee’s brief shall be
served and filed within 14 days after service of the brief of the appellant; and (3) the appellant may
serve and file a reply brief within 14 days after service of the brief of the appellee. These issues
being decided, the Clerk is further ordered to remove from the calendar the telephone status
conference currently scheduled for April 2, 2013.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2013.
s/ William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court
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?