Filed: Jan. 31, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2018
Summary: ORDER ROBERT N. CHATIGNY , District Judge . Ms. Speer has moved for reconsideration of the order dismissing this bankruptcy appeal. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied. Ms. Speer, proceeding pro se , brought this appeal seeking review of an order of the Bankruptcy Court denying her motion for reconsideration of an order denying her motion to quash a subpoena served by her largest creditor, Seaport Capital Partners, LLC ("Seaport"), on the City of Norwich. Seaport moved to di
Summary: ORDER ROBERT N. CHATIGNY , District Judge . Ms. Speer has moved for reconsideration of the order dismissing this bankruptcy appeal. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied. Ms. Speer, proceeding pro se , brought this appeal seeking review of an order of the Bankruptcy Court denying her motion for reconsideration of an order denying her motion to quash a subpoena served by her largest creditor, Seaport Capital Partners, LLC ("Seaport"), on the City of Norwich. Seaport moved to dis..
More
ORDER
ROBERT N. CHATIGNY, District Judge.
Ms. Speer has moved for reconsideration of the order dismissing this bankruptcy appeal. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
Ms. Speer, proceeding pro se, brought this appeal seeking review of an order of the Bankruptcy Court denying her motion for reconsideration of an order denying her motion to quash a subpoena served by her largest creditor, Seaport Capital Partners, LLC ("Seaport"), on the City of Norwich. Seaport moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order was interlocutory in nature and not appealable. The motion was denied and Ms. Speer was directed to file her initial brief by July 25, 2016. ECF No. 17. After Ms. Speer failed to comply with that order, Seaport again moved to dismiss the appeal. ECF No. 21. Ms. Speer objected on the ground that she had never. No. 26. received the order. The motion to dismiss was denied and Ms. Speer was notified that she had to file her brief within two weeks or the appeal would be dismissed without further notice. ECF No. 23. No brief was filed so the appeal was ordered dismissed. ECF No. 24. Judgment entered the same day. ECF No. 25. Nine days later, Ms. Speer filed a motion to reconsider the order dismissing the case claiming that she was unaware of the briefing schedule because the order had been "overlooked." ECF No. 26.
Ms. Speer's motion for reconsideration is unavailing. The order was prominently posted on CM/ECF in the form of a lengthy text order that would be seen by anyone glancing at the docket. In addition, it was mailed to Ms. Speer at her residence. Ms. Speer's assertion that the order was "overlooked" is particularly difficult to credit in view of the history of her litigation conduct in the bankruptcy proceeding. See Scheduling Order & Order to Show Cause, In re Speer, No. 14-bk-21007(AMN), ECF No. 1536 (Nov. 22, 2017). Given that history, I cannot find that Ms. Speer's failure to comply with the order is excusable.
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied.
So ordered.
