IN RE: Teresa Jean MOORE; Jennifer Lauren Moore (2020)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
IN RE: Teresa Jean MOORE; Jennifer Lauren Moore, Debtors. Teresa Jean Moore; Jennifer Lauren Moore, Appellants, v. John Nelso Spadaro; et al., Appellees.
Decided: July 22, 2020
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Teresa Jean Moore, Pro Se Jennifer Lauren Moore, Pro Se William F. McLaughlin, Esquire, Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Appellee John Nelso Spadaro David Samani, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee Reid A. Nakamura Alison P. Buchanan, Attorney, Crystal N. Riggins, Hoge Fenton Jones & Appel Inc., San Jose, CA, for Appellee Randall E. Kay
Chapter 13 debtors Teresa Jean Moore and Jennifer Lauren Moore appeal pro se from the district court's order dismissing their bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellants’ appeal for failure to prosecute or by denying appellants further time to oppose defendant Kay's motion to dismiss, after it previously provided them numerous extensions of time to perfect their appeal and opportunities to respond to the orders to show cause. See id. at 1451-56 (discussing factors for district court to weigh in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute; noting that dismissal should not be disturbed unless there is a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court has broad discretion to manage its docket).
Because we affirm the district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute, we do not consider appellants’ challenges to the bankruptcy court's orders or judgment in the underlying adversary proceeding.
Appellants’ motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 19) is denied as unnecessary.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.