In Re: Jordana Marinkovic Bauman
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se bankruptcy appeal that had failed to perfect the record on appeal due to technical file size violations. The court ordered the appellant to perfect the record by April 3, 2025, warning that failure to do so may result in dismissal, and vacated all other briefing deadlines.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order to Show Cause / Order to Perfect Record“Given this deficiency, the Court ORDERS Appellant to perfect his appeal by April 3, 2025.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the appeal was unperfected under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009 because the electronic media exceeded the 35 MB limit. Granting a final deadline with a warning of dismissal is a standard procedural mechanism to ensure compliance with record perfection rules. The court had previously granted an extension, and this order serves as a final warning before potential dismissal under Rule 8003(a)(2). |
Vacatur of Briefing Deadlines“The Court accordingly VACATES all other briefing deadlines on this appeal, to be reset if and when Appellant perfects the record.” | agree with court It is procedurally appropriate to vacate briefing deadlines when the record on appeal is not yet perfected, as briefs cannot be meaningfully prepared or filed until the record is established. This prevents wasted effort and ensures the appeal is handled in the correct sequence. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It accurately identifies the specific deficiency (file size exceeding 35 MB) and cites the correct rules and case law regarding the consequences of failing to perfect the record. The court has already granted one extension, and this order provides a final deadline with clear warning of dismissal, which is a reasonable exercise of judicial discretion to manage the docket and enforce procedural rules. The vacatur of other deadlines is logically consistent with the unperfected status of the record.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN RE: JORDANA M. BAUMAN, Case No.: 24-CV-1564 JLS (BLM)
12 Debtor, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 14 15 MEL MARIN, 16 Appellant, 18 MICHAEL KOCH, Appellee. 19 20 On September 4, 2024, pro se Appellant Mel Marin filed a bankruptcy appeal.1 ECF 21 No. 1. Appellant subsequently filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Requests to 22 Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), followed by his Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP. 23 ECF Nos. 7, 8. Then, on October 21, 2024, Appellant filed Emergency Motions to Stay 24 Pending Appeal and to Stay the State Court Action. ECF Nos. 11, 12. The case, originally 25 assigned to Judge James E. Simmons, was subsequently transferred to this Court. ECF 26 27 1 Notably, Appellant represents he is the brother of the Debtor in the underlying action, Jordana Bauman, 28 1 No. 14. On October 31, 2024, the Court granted Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Proceed 2 IFP, but denied Appellant’s Emergency Motions.2 ECF No. 15. The Court then ordered 3 the Parties to perfect the record in accordance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4 8009 on or before January 16, 2025. ECF No. 16 at 2. 5 On December 13, 2024, Appellant filed a Motion to Clarify Status After Bankruptcy 6 Filing, notifying the Court of his own bankruptcy filing and suggesting that the case be 7 stayed. ECF No. 17. The Court denied Appellant’s Motion as Appellant had not 8 adequately explained why such stay was justified. ECF No. 18 at 2. 9 On January 16, 2025, the Court received Appellant’s Designation of Record and 10 Points to Be Raised. ECF No. 19. Appellee Michael Koch then filed Supplements to 11 Transmittal of Appeal, including Appellee’s Designation of Record on Appeal and 12 Appendix, and Appellee’s Certificate that Transcript is Not Being Requested. ECF 13 Nos. 20, 21. However, on February 13, 2025, Appellant filed a Motion for Clarification 14 and Extension of Time to Perfect the Record, citing issues with a “bankruptcy window 15 clerk” and confusion with the Court’s prior Order. See generally ECF No. 22. On 16 February 20, 2025, the Court received a Notice of Unperfected Appeal, indicating that 17 Appellant had not taken action to perfect this appeal as provided by Federal Rule of 18 Bankruptcy Procedure 8009 because the record on appeal was not submitted by electronic 19 media, as required. ECF No. 23. Later that same day, Appellant filed a Motion to Stay the 20 Appeal to Allow the Lower Court to Correct the Record. ECF No. 24. 21 In its Order on February 21, 2025, the Court noted its concern with Appellant’s 22 repeated filings requesting clarification, extensions, or stays of this appeal. ECF No. 25 23 at 4. Nonetheless, the Court granted Appellant’s Motion for an Extension of Time to 24 Perfect the Record and denied his Motion for Stay. Id. The Court ordered Appellant to 25 perfect the record on appeal in accordance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 26 27 2 The Court also denied Debtor Jordana Bauman’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 9) as 28 1 || Procedure 8009 on or before March 7, 2025, and advised no further extension would be 2 || granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 4—5. 3 On March 7, 2025, Appellant filed a Supplement to Transmittal of Appeal. ECF 4 ||No. 26. However, on March 11, 2025, the Court received another Notice of Unperfected 5 || Appeal, indicating that Appellant had not taken action to perfect this appeal as provided by 6 || Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009. ECF No. 31. Specifically, the Notice advises 7 || that the “electronic media contains multiple PDF files that collectively exceed 35 MB” and 8 directs Appellant to the requirements sent on September 3, 2024, entitled “Important Tips 9 || Regarding the Attached Notice of Appeal.” Id. 10 Given this deficiency, the Court ORDERS Appellant to perfect his appeal by April 11 |/3, 2025. The Court cautions Appellant again that failure to perfect his appeal, this time by 12 || April 3, 2025, may result in dismissal of this appeal. See, e.g., Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(2), 13 || 8020(b); Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); see also In re Marsh, 14 F. App’x 727, 729 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that a three month delay in designating the 15 ||record on appeal was an “‘inexcusably flagrant violation of the court’s rules” and warranted 16 || dismissal). 17 The Court accordingly VACATES all other briefing deadlines on this appeal, to be 18 || reset if and when Appellant perfects the record. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: March 14, 2025 . tt 21 jen Janis L. Sammartino 9 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 9g ||* The Court notes the document “Important Tips Regarding the Attached Notice of Appeal” can also be found at ECF No. 1-3 at 5 (CM/ECF pagination).