FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 07 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: CHARLENE GRUNTZ, No. 12-60014
Debtor, BAP No. 11-1329
JOHN MARTIN; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Appellants,
v.
PATRICIA J. ZIMMERMAN, Chapter 7
Trustee; et al.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kirscher, Dunn, and Markell, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
John Martin and other appellants collectively appeal pro se from the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment dismissing, for failure to
prosecute, their appeal from the bankruptcy court’s remand order. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion,
Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re Morrissey), 349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003), and
we affirm.
The BAP did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellants’ appeal
because, after getting multiple extensions of time to file their opening brief and
despite repeated warnings that failure to file the opening brief would result in
dismissal without further notice, appellants continued to seek further extensions
and never filed their opening brief. See Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31
F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth factors under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for determining whether to dismiss a bankruptcy proceeding for
failure to prosecute); Nat’l Bank of Long Beach v. Donovan (In re Donovan), 871
F.2d 807, 808 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (dismissal of a bankruptcy appeal for
failure to prosecute is appropriately analogized to a dismissal under Rule 41(b)).
Because we affirm the BAP’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we do not
consider appellants’ challenge to the bankruptcy court’s remand order on the
merits. See In re Morrissey, 349 F.3d at 1190.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-60014