Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 8, 2025

In Re: 45 John Lofts, LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-10238
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
BankruptcyCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In re 45 John Lofts, Judge Vyskocil dismissed Chaim Babad and Congregation Kahal Minchas Church’s bankruptcy appeal with prejudice for failing to file a brief.

Who this affects

Chaim Babad and Congregation Kahal Minchas Church’s bankruptcy appeal was dismissed with prejudice after they failed to file the required appellate documents and did not respond to the court’s show-cause order.

What happened

In re 45 John Lofts, LLC concerned an appeal by Chaim Babad and Congregation Kahal Minchas Church from a bankruptcy-court judgment and an order requiring turnover of funds. They did not file the required statement of issues or brief for more than a year.

The court ordered the appellants to explain by January 2, 2025 why the appeal should not be dismissed, but they did not respond. The court considered the length of the delay, the warning about dismissal, possible prejudice, court congestion, due process, and whether a lesser sanction would work.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the appeal with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and ordered the case closed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
In Re: 45 John Lofts, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-10238
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Jan. 8, 2025

Background

Chaim Babad and Congregation Kahal Minchas Church appealed a judgment from a bankruptcy case and, in this related appeal, an order granting turnover of funds toward that judgment. The opinion states that the appellants had designated the record on appeal but had not completed the appeal for more than a year. They failed to file a statement of the issues or a brief by the deadlines in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009(a).

The court had ordered the appellants to show cause—that is, explain—why the appeal should not be dismissed for failing to file a brief. The order set a January 2, 2025 deadline and warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal or other sanctions. The deadline passed without a response.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the Bankruptcy Rules’ deadlines are not jurisdictional, meaning that missing them does not automatically require dismissal. Instead, the court had discretion to decide whether dismissal was appropriate.

The court applied factors used for dismissing a case for failure to prosecute, including the length of the delay, notice that further delay could lead to dismissal, possible prejudice to the appellee, the balance between court efficiency and the party’s right to due process, and whether a lesser sanction would be effective. The court found dismissal appropriate because the appeal had been pending without a brief for more than a year, the appellants provided no explanation or excuse, and they did not respond after receiving notice that continued failure could lead to dismissal. Although the record did not show actual prejudice to the appellee, the court stated that prejudice may be presumed when delay is lengthy and inexcusable. The court also determined that no lesser sanction was appropriate.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the appeal with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment and close the case.

Uncertainty

The supplied case metadata lists a filing date of January 8, 2025, while the opinion text states January 8, 2024. The detailed header uses the date stated in the opinion text.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.