Allen v. Freund
Filing
20
ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 3/20/2017 DISCHARGING 16 the Court's 3/1/2017 Order to Show Cause. Appellee shall serve and file response brief to Appellant's first amended brief (Docket #17) by 4/14/2017; Appellant may serve and file reply brief within 14 days of service of Appellee's brief. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Edward O. Allen)(jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
EDWARD O. ALLEN,
Appellant,
v.
Case No. 16-CV-1222-JPS
CHRISTOPHER C. FREUND,
Appellee.
ORDER
Appellant Edward O. Allen (“Allen”) filed the instant appeal of a
judgment of the bankruptcy court on September 12, 2016. (Docket #1). Prior
to its reassignment to this branch of the Court on March 15, 2017, this matter
was assigned to Judge Charles N. Clevert, Jr. Judge Clevert set a briefing
schedule on December 1, 2016 (Docket #6), and after granting Allen an
extension of time (Docket #10), Allen filed his first attempt at a principal brief
on February 15, 2017. (Docket #12, #13, #14, #15). The brief was well over the
length limit set by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8015. See (Docket
#12) (motion for leave to file oversized brief); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8015(a)(7).
Because Allen had not provided good reasons for his professed need to file
an over-length brief, Judge Clevert ordered him to submit a principal brief
that complied with the briefing rules no later than February 24, 2017. See Feb.
16, 2017 Text-Only Order.
When Allen failed to file his amended principal brief by that date,
Judge Clevert ordered him to show cause why his appeal should not be
dismissed. (Docket #16). Allen timely responded to that order with an
amended brief that ostensibly complies with the word limit of Rule 8015.
(Docket #17). He also filed a response to the show-cause order, explaining
that he was unable to comply with the Court’s deadlines because he lives in
California and has to contend with the pace of the U.S. Postal Service.
(Docket #18).
The Court finds that the show-cause order should be discharged and
the briefing in this matter should proceed apace. While the Court does not
countenance Allen’s attempt to foist blame for his failures onto the mail
system—it is his appeal, after all, and it is his duty to prosecute it vigorously
and to comply with the rules and orders of this Court—he has now filed what
appears to be a compliant principal brief. This satisfies the Court that the
appeal can proceed on the merits. Consequently, the Court will amend the
remainder of the briefing schedule as detailed below.
The parties are warned that no further extensions of time will be
granted absent a clear showing of extraordinary circumstances. Delays
caused by the mail do not constitute extraordinary circumstances. Allen is
further warned that the Court expects his reply brief, should he choose to file
one, to comply with the briefing rules the first time. If it does not, he will not
be afforded an opportunity to amend it; it will simply be stricken from the
record and not considered by the Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Court’s March 1, 2017 order to show cause
(Docket #16) be and the same is hereby DISCHARGED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall proceed according to
the following schedule unless otherwise ordered by the Court:
(1)
Appellee shall serve and file his brief in response to Appellant’s
first amended brief (Docket #17) no later than April 14, 2017;
and
Page 2 of 3
(2)
Appellant may serve and file a reply brief no later than
fourteen (14) days after service of Appellee’s brief.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 20th day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
Page 3 of 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?