In re CHARLESTON ASSOCIATES, LLC, Chapter 11, Debtor.
CHARLESTON ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff,
RA SOUTHEAST LAND COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, et al. Defendant.
CHARLES ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellant,
RA SOUTHEAST LAND COMPANY, LLC and CITY NATIONAL BANK, Appellees.
Case No. 2:14-cv-00017-MMD, Bankruptcy Case No. 13-10499-lbr, Adversary No. 10-01452-lbr.
United States District Court, D. Nevada.
September 22, 2015.
(Motion to Dismiss — dkt. no. 21)
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
This case involves an appeal of certain orders of the Bankruptcy Court under 28 U.S.C. 158(a). Before the Court is Appellee RA Southeast Land Company, LLC’s (“RAS”) Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Nonprosecution. (Dkt. no. 21.) Appellant Charleston Associates, LLC (“Charleston”) has filed a response (dkt. no. 23) and RAS has filed its reply (dkt. no. 25). Appellee City National Bank joins in RAS’s motion and reply.
Charleston filed its notice of appeal on January 3, 2014. (Dkt. no. 1.) On March 6, 2014, the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court filed a status report (“Status Report”) notifying the Court that the record on appeal has not been forwarded to this Court because no reporter’s transcripts for the three relevant hearings have been filed. (Dkt. no. 15.) RAS filed its Motion on December 18, 2014. (Dkt. no. 21.)
RAS argues that the Court should dismiss this appeal for lack of prosecution because as of the filing of its Motion, Charleston had not made any attempts to prosecute this appeal. Charleston filed the certificate of interested parties and a pro hac vice petition, but had taken no further action, including ordering the reporter’s transcripts even after receiving notice of this deficiency in the Status Report. Charleston countered that it did order the reporter’s transcripts and filed a notice of ordering transcript on January 17, 2014. (Dkt. no. 23-1.) According to Charleston, there was a miscommunication with the court reporter as to the required deposit, but the error had been corrected and Charleston reordered the transcripts on December 31, 2014.
The Court agrees with RAS that Charleston’s explanation does not clarify the nine months delay in correcting the error upon notice of the error as evidenced in the March 2014 Status Report. However, the Court finds that the administrative error here does not warrant dismissal of the appeal for lack of prosecution. It is therefore ordered that RAS’ Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Nonprosecution (dkt. no. 21) is denied.
Save trees – read court opinions online on Google Scholar.