Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 Case No.: 26-cv-01045-DMS-JAC 9 IN RE CARLA MCEWEN, 10 Debtor, Bankruptcy No.: 25-03821-JBM13 11 CARLA MCEWEN, ORDER RESOLVING 12 Appellant, APPELLANT’S REQUESTS 13 v. AND TO SHOW CAUSE 14 SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC. doing business as CHRYSLER 15 CAPITAL, 16 Appellee.

17 Pending before the Court in this bankruptcy appeal are three filings by Appellant 18 Carla McEwen, proceeding pro se. On August 4, 2026, Appellant filed a Renewed Motion 19 to Deem Related Appeals Related and to Transfer No. 3:26-cv-02845 Under the Low 20 Number Rule; for Coordinated Administration or, Alternatively, Consolidation; to 21 Supplement the Record and Reset Affected Briefing Deadlines, with a hearing set for 22 September 4, 2026 at 1:30 PM. (ECF No. 15). On August 7, 2026, Appellant filed a 23 Request for Access to and Identification of Judicial Records; Correction of Email Address. 24 (ECF No. 20). On August 10, 2026, Appellant filed a Jurisdictional Statement and Request 25 to Stay Record Perfection Obligations Pending Jurisdiction Determination. (ECF No. 17). 26 The Court finds these matters suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil 27 Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and vacates the September 4, 2026 hearing. For the following 28 1 reasons, the Court denies the requests in ECF Nos. 15 and 17, and grants in part and denies 2 in part the requests in ECF No. 20. The Court additionally orders Appellant to show cause 3 why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to perfect the record. 4 I. BACKGROUND 5 On February 18, 2026, Appellant Carla McEwen filed a notice of appeal pursuant to 6 28 U.S.C. § 158, seeking review of an order by the United States Bankruptcy Court, 7 Southern District of California. (ECF No. 1). Appellant challenges the Bankruptcy Court’s 8 February 10, 2026 minute order denying as moot Appellant’s motion to vacate the order 9 granting relief from the automatic stay. (Id. at 3). The Court subsequently issued a briefing 10 order with the record to be perfected no later than April 6, 2026, and Appellant’s opening 11 brief to be filed no later than May 4, 2026. (ECF No. 2). On April 10, 2026, the Court 12 received a Notice of Unperfected Appeal. (ECF No. 3). On April 16, 2026, the Court 13 received a Supplemental Transmittal of Appeal containing Appellant’s Designation of 14 Record on Appeal. (ECF No. 4). On April 22, 2026, the Court received another 15 Supplemental Transmittal of Appeal containing a notice of errors or deficiencies due to a 16 failure to include docket numbers with each designated item. (ECF No. 5). On June 24, 17 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) requesting Appellant explain why 18 the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to perfect the record and file an opening 19 brief. (ECF No. 11). Appellant responded, attributing her noncompliance to significant 20 personal hardship, confusion of several related proceedings, and uncertainty regarding how 21 to perfect the record, requesting an opportunity to cure any remaining deficiency. (ECF 22 No. 12 at 3–4, 8, 10). Appellant simultaneously filed her opening brief with an attached 23 appendix. (ECF No. 13). As the record on appeal had still not been perfected or 24 transmitted, the Court extended Appellant’s deadline to August 14, 2026. (ECF No. 14). 25 On August 4, 2026, Appellant filed the Renewed Motion to Deem Related Appeals Related 26 and to Transfer No. 3:26-cv-02845 Under the Low Number Rule; for Coordinated 27 Administration or, Alternatively, Consolidation; to Supplement the Record and Reset 28 Affected Briefing Deadlines. (ECF No. 15). On August 7, 2026, Appellant filed a Notice 1 of Appeal from ECF No. 14, the Court’s order discharging the OSC and resetting the 2 deadline for record perfection. (ECF No. 16). On August 7, 2026, Appellant filed a 3 Request for Access to and Identification of Judicial Records; Correction of Email Address. 4 (ECF No. 20). On August 10, 2026, Appellant filed a Jurisdictional Statement and Request 5 to Stay Record Perfection Obligations Pending Jurisdiction Determination. (ECF No. 17). 6 On August 14, 2026, Appellant filed a Supplement to Transmittal of Appeal and/or 7 Bankruptcy Matter. (ECF No. 21). 8 Additionally, Appellant has two other bankruptcy appeals pending before the Court. 9 On April 28, 2026, Appellant appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s February 6, 2026 order 10 dismissing the Chapter 13 case and imposing a one-year bar on refiling in 3:26-cv-02710- 11 DMS-JAC. (26-cv-02710 ECF No. 1 at 5, 19). On May 5, 2026, Appellant appealed the 12 Bankruptcy Court’s April 21, 2026 order denying motions for stay pending appeal in 3:26- 13 cv-02845-DMS-JAC. (26-cv-02845 ECF No. 1 at 3). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 A. Jurisdiction and the Notice of Appeal 16 Appellant requests that the Court vacate or stay ECF No. 14 on the ground that the 17 Court has not determined and stated the basis for its jurisdiction. (ECF No. 17 at 1). That 18 request is denied. The Court’s jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), which Appellant 19 herself invoked by filing a notice of appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s order. (See ECF No. 20 1); see also Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 589 U.S. 35, 47 (2020) (holding 21 that an order conclusively resolving a motion for relief from an automatic stay is final and 22 immediately appealable); In re Stokes, No. MT-17-1085-FBKu, 2017 WL 4768100, at *4 23 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2017) (“Orders denying relief on motions to vacate are generally 24 considered to be final and appealable.” (citation modified)). Appellant’s requests that ECF 25 No. 14 be stayed on account of her health, the Court rule before the deadline, and her filings 26 be docketed as of the date received are denied as moot. (ECF No. 17 at 3–4, 6–7). The 27 August 14, 2026 deadline has passed, Appellant filed a designation on that date, and the 28 Clerk docketed her filings. (See ECF No. 21). 1 Additionally, Appellant’s Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit does not prevent the 2 Court from proceeding. (ECF No. 16). Although the “filing of a notice of appeal . . . 3 [ordinarily] divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved 4 in the appeal,” that rule does not apply when a notice of appeal “is defective in that it refers 5 to a non-appealable interlocutory order.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 6 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 402 (1982); Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 908 (9th 7 Cir. 2007). Here, ECF No. 14 is an interlocutory scheduling order which discharged an 8 OSC and reset the deadline for record perfection. It is not final and does not satisfy the 9 collateral order doctrine. See Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S. 59, 64 (2018) (“A final decision ends 10 the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” 11 (citation modified)); Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 42 (1995) (explaining 12 that parties may appeal “a small category of decisions . . . that are conclusive, that resolve 13 important questions separate from the merits, and that are effectively unreviewable on 14 appeal from the final judgment in the underlying action.”). Accordingly, the Court “may 15 disregard the purported notice of appeal and proceed with the case.” Ruby v. Sec’y of U.S. 16 Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966) (en banc). 17 B. Motion for Transfer, Coordination, or Consolidation 18 Appellant has filed a Renewed Motion to Deem Related Appeals Related and to 19 Transfer No. 3:26-cv-02845 Under the Low Number Rule; for Coordinated Administration 20 or, Alternatively, Consolidation; to Supplement the Record and Reset Affected Briefing 21 Deadlines. (ECF No. 15). Appellant’s request that 26-cv-02845 be transferred pursuant 22 to Civil Local Rule 40.1 is denied as moot because the action was already transferred to 23 the Court on August 14, 2026. (Id. at 2; 26-cv-02845 ECF No. 14). 24 Appellant alternatively requests that her three appeals be administered together with 25 “a shared appendix, uniform record citations, leave to lodge identical record materials in 26 each case, and synchronized deadlines, with each appeal keeping its own caption, docket, 27 record, briefs, and judgment.” (ECF No. 15 at 2). This request is denied. Each appeal has 28 its own record, parties, and briefing schedule. Synchronizing deadlines would delay cases 1 that are otherwise on track. Nothing in this Order prevents a party from citing documents 2 according to the Bankruptcy docket number. Appellant further requests consolidation. 3 (Id.). The Court previously denied this request in its June 24, 2026 order. (ECF No. 11 at 4 2–3). As Appellant has not identified any changed circumstances warranting a different 5 result, this request is denied. The three appeals challenge different orders, have different 6 appellees, and do not present a common question of law or fact. For those reasons, 7 consolidation under Rule 42 is not warranted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). 8 Appellant requests leave to prepare statements of evidence under Rule 8009(c) 9 regarding the January 13 and February 10, 2026 hearings and to supplement the record 10 under Rule 8009(e). (ECF No. 15 at 3, 16–17). However, leave of this Court is not required 11 as both statements of evidence and corrections to the record must be made to the appellees 12 or Bankruptcy Court. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(c)(3), (e)(1). Accordingly, this request 13 is denied as unnecessary. 14 Appellant requests leave to file a supplemental opening brief in this action and to 15 reset the deadlines in 26-cv-02845. (ECF No. 15 at 3). As to the former request, the 16 Court’s previous order specified that “[u]pon perfection of the record, the Court will set 17 further deadlines.” (ECF No. 14 at 3). Whether the record will be perfected and proceed 18 depends on Appellant’s response to the OSC described below. Accordingly, this request 19 is presently denied without prejudice. If the appeal proceeds, the Court will address the 20 briefing schedule, including whether an amended opening brief is appropriate. As to the 21 latter request, it is denied as moot because the deadlines in 26-cv-02845 were reset on 22 August 12, 2026. (26-cv-02845 ECF No. 13). 23 C. Request for Access to Judicial Records and Correction of Email Address 24 Appellant has filed a letter to the Clerk of the Court requesting they search the 25 Court’s indexes, records, calendars, and dockets for her name, the property, her case 26 numbers, a specific email address, and the name “Jodi Lee.” (ECF No. 20 at 1–2). 27 Although Appellant invokes the common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records, 28 that right does not oblige the Clerk to conduct research on a litigant’s behalf. (Id. at 2 1 (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)); see Citizens for 2 Quality Educ. S.D. v. Barrera, 333 F. Supp. 3d 1003, 1031 n.20 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (“It is not 3 the court’s duty to do a litigant’s legal research.” (citation modified)). The Court’s records 4 are available to Appellant through PACER or the public terminals in the Clerk’s Office. 5 Accordingly, this request is denied. Appellant additionally requests that her email address 6 of record be corrected to mcewencarla@proton.me. This request is granted and the Clerk 7 of Court is directed to update Appellant’s contact information. 8 D. Record on Appeal 9 Appellant was required to perfect the record on appeal by August 14, 2026. 10 Although Appellant filed a designation on that date, it appears to target a different appeal, 11 likely 26-cv-02710. (ECF Nos. 21, 21-1). The caption lists appellees not party to this 12 action and the filing identifies “the Order Granting Motions to Dismiss and Imposing Re- 13 Filing Bar” as the order being appealed. (ECF No. 21-1 at 1, 5). Furthermore, the 14 designation does not identify items to be included as required by Rule 8009 and instead 15 designates the entire docket of the underlying bankruptcy case, as well as the dockets of 16 Appellant’s 2022 and 2024 bankruptcy cases. (Id. at 5, 25, 32). Finally, Appellant has not 17 ordered any transcript as required by Rule 8009(b)(1). (Id. at 56). Appellant states that 18 she is “not refusing [her] transcript obligations” but waiting until “after [she receives] 19 written clarification identifying the correct hearing, case number, segment, and 20 timestamps.” (Id.). However, the Court has already identified the order on appeal and it 21 is Appellant’s responsibility to determine which proceedings are necessary for review of 22 that order. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(b)(1) (requiring the appellant to order the transcripts 23 they “consider[] necessary for the appeal.”). Accordingly, Appellant is ordered to show 24 cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to perfect the record on appeal. 25 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court VACATES the September 4, 2026 hearing and 27 DENIES Appellant’s requests except for the request to correct her email address on file 28 which is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to correct Appellant’s email | || address on file to mcewencarla@proton.me. Finally, Appellant is ORDERED TO SHOW 2 || CAUSE as to why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to perfect the record. 3 || Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order, Appellant must respond in writing. If 4 || Appellant intends to proceed with this appeal, she must, within the next thirty (30) days, 5 || file in the Bankruptcy Court an amended designation of record and statement of issues 6 || directed to the February 10, 2026 order and either order the transcripts of any hearings she 7 || considers necessary or file a certificate that no transcripts are being ordered. Failure to 8 respond to this Order may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 |} Dated: August 24, 2026 2» 11 prin Yn. L4)\ 12 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw B United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28