In re: Carol Guadagnolo v. 21 N. Chatsworth Owners Corp.

Background

Carol Guadagnolo filed a bankruptcy appeal on September 10, 2025. After filing the notice of appeal, she did not file the documents required to move the appeal forward, including a designation of the items to be included in the appellate record and a statement of the issues to be presented. She also did not serve those documents on 21 N. Chatsworth Owners Corp., the appellee.

On April 17, 2026, the Court ordered Guadagnolo to explain within two weeks why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply on time with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The court stated that there had been no docket activity in the months after that order.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss a case when a party fails to prosecute it or fails to follow court rules or a court order. The court also explained that Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8003(a)(2) permits a district court to take appropriate action, including dismissing a bankruptcy appeal, when an appellant does not take required steps beyond timely filing a notice of appeal.

Before dismissing for failure to prosecute, courts consider the length of the delay, whether the party was warned that further delay could lead to dismissal, likely prejudice to the opposing party, the balance between court efficiency and the party’s opportunity to be heard, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.

Court’s Analysis

The Court concluded that these factors favored dismissal. It found that there had been no docket activity since September 2025, that Guadagnolo had received a warning and an opportunity to respond, and that the length of the delay supported a presumption that the appellee would be prejudiced by further delay. The Court also found that dismissal would promote efficiency and that lesser sanctions were not required on this record because Guadagnolo had not engaged with the case for almost a year.

The Court separately determined that Guadagnolo had failed to take the steps required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009 after filing the appeal and after receiving the order to show cause. The Court therefore had an independent basis under the bankruptcy rules to dismiss the appeal.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas dismissed Guadagnolo’s appeal without prejudice for failure to prosecute, under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and independently under Rule 41(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion did not address the merits of the underlying bankruptcy dispute.