UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 20, 2012
IN RE GAYLE MULLEN
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable George H. King, U. S. District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Presiding: The Honorable GEORGE H. KING, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Beatrice Herrera N/A N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None None Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Dismissing Appeal
On July 26, 2011, the Clerk of the U.S. District Court filed a notice that this bankruptcy appeal was ready for briefing and hearing in this Court. The notice directed that Appellant's opening brief must be filed in the District Court by no later than August 9, 2011. On August 22, 2011, noting that a review of the docket showed that Appellant's brief still had not been filed, we issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Appellant responded to our OSC ("Response") on September 6, 2011, stating that an opening brief had not been filed because Appellant filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to hear this appeal directly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). The Response requested that we allow Appellant to file a status report updating the Court as to whether the Ninth Circuit granted a direct appeal. On September 20, 2011, we discharged our OSC. We noted our displeasure with Appellant's willingness to ignore the deadlines for the filing of an opening brief in this Court and failure to even give us the courtesy of any notification regarding his appeal, much less a request for a stay of the deadline pending action by the Ninth Circuit. We ordered Appellant to file a status report within forty-eight hours of the Ninth Circuit's decision whether to grant a direct appeal. We stated that if a direct appeal is granted, we would enter an order dismissing the appeal with the merits to be decided by the Ninth Circuit.
On October 7, 2011, Appellant filed a status report informing us that the Ninth Circuit had not yet acted on his petition. Appellant has filed no further status reports. We have independently examined the Ninth Circuit docket with respect to Appellant's action (Case No. 11-80212) and note that on November 15, 2011, the Ninth Circuit granted Appellant's petition, a development of which Appellant again failed to apprise us. In light of the Ninth Circuit's grant of a direct appeal, we hereby DISMISS this appeal in this Court, with the merits to be decided by the Ninth Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Deputy Clerk ljw for Bea
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.