From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. Zimmerman (In re Gruntz)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 25, 2014
No. 12-60014 (9th Cir. Jun. 25, 2014)

Summary

affirming dismissal of bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute where appellants, among other things, "never filed their opening brief"

Summary of this case from Fox v. Derham-Burk

Opinion

No. 12-60014 BAP No. 11-1329

06-25-2014

In re: CHARLENE GRUNTZ, Debtor, JOHN MARTIN; et al., Appellants, v. PATRICIA J. ZIMMERMAN, Chapter 7 Trustee; et al., Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Kirscher, Dunn, and Markell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding


Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

John Martin and other appellants collectively appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") judgment dismissing, for failure to prosecute, their appeal from the bankruptcy court's remand order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion, Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re Morrissey), 349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

The BAP did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellants' appeal because, after getting multiple extensions of time to file their opening brief and despite repeated warnings that failure to file the opening brief would result in dismissal without further notice, appellants continued to seek further extensions and never filed their opening brief. See Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth factors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for determining whether to dismiss a bankruptcy proceeding for failure to prosecute); Nat'l Bank of Long Beach v. Donovan (In re Donovan), 871 F.2d 807, 808 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (dismissal of a bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute is appropriately analogized to a dismissal under Rule 41(b)).

Because we affirm the BAP's dismissal for failure to prosecute, we do not consider appellants' challenge to the bankruptcy court's remand order on the merits. See In re Morrissey, 349 F.3d at 1190.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Martin v. Zimmerman (In re Gruntz)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 25, 2014
No. 12-60014 (9th Cir. Jun. 25, 2014)

affirming dismissal of bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute where appellants, among other things, "never filed their opening brief"

Summary of this case from Fox v. Derham-Burk

affirming dismissal of bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute where appellants, despite repeated warnings from court, failed to meet court-imposed deadlines

Summary of this case from Hassan v. Blackburne & Sons Realty Capital Corp.

affirming dismissal of bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute where appellants, among other things, "never filed their opening brief

Summary of this case from Wade v. Stevens
Case details for

Martin v. Zimmerman (In re Gruntz)

Case Details

Full title:In re: CHARLENE GRUNTZ, Debtor, JOHN MARTIN; et al., Appellants, v…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 25, 2014

Citations

No. 12-60014 (9th Cir. Jun. 25, 2014)

Citing Cases

Wade v. Stevens

Based on Appellant's dilatory conduct and failure to follow the Court's deadlines, the Court finds that…

Hassan v. Blackburne & Sons Realty Capital Corp.

See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (affirming denial for failure to prosecute where…