IN RE PAJARILLO, 13-ap-1053-BAM (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20140418h31
Visitors: 23
Filed: Apr. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. Debtor-Appellant Fidel H. Pajarillo filed the present adversary proceeding to quiet title real property in Las Vegas. Several Appellees moved to dismiss because the property had been sold at an HOA foreclosure sale, such that Plaintiff could assert no further interest in the property. The bankruptcy judge granted the motion after a hearing. Appellant appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP"), but one or more Appellees requested the present forum,
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge. Debtor-Appellant Fidel H. Pajarillo filed the present adversary proceeding to quiet title real property in Las Vegas. Several Appellees moved to dismiss because the property had been sold at an HOA foreclosure sale, such that Plaintiff could assert no further interest in the property. The bankruptcy judge granted the motion after a hearing. Appellant appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP"), but one or more Appellees requested the present forum, ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
Debtor-Appellant Fidel H. Pajarillo filed the present adversary proceeding to quiet title real property in Las Vegas. Several Appellees moved to dismiss because the property had been sold at an HOA foreclosure sale, such that Plaintiff could assert no further interest in the property. The bankruptcy judge granted the motion after a hearing. Appellant appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP"), but one or more Appellees requested the present forum, so the BAP transferred the appeal here. Appellant filed no opening brief by November 8, 2013, as the BAP had ordered. Nor did he file an opening brief by December 7, 2013, in accordance with the request for extension of time he improperly filed in the underlying bankruptcy case. Nor did he file an opening brief by January 8, 2014, in accordance with the second request for extension of time he again improperly filed in the underlying bankruptcy case. Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal. Appellant has not timely responded. The Court grants the motion for failure to prosecute the appeal. See Local.R.Bankr.P. 8070(a).
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute, and the Clerk shall close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
