In Re: Motors Liquidation Company
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-06668
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In re Motors Liquidation Company: Judge Nathan dismissed Marianne OGrady’s bankruptcy appeal with prejudice after she repeatedly failed to file a required brief.
The order ended Marianne OGrady’s appeal of the bankruptcy settlement approval. It also denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
What happened
In re Motors Liquidation Company involved Marianne OGrady’s appeal of a bankruptcy judge’s order approving a settlement related to the Motors Liquidation Company Avoidance Action Trust. OGrady represented herself in the appeal.
The court gave OGrady multiple deadlines and warned that failing to file a brief could lead to dismissal. She did not file a brief or otherwise communicate with the court after June 2019.
Judge Nathan dismissed the appeal with prejudice for failure to prosecute, directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case, and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for any appeal.
The detailed version
- In Re: Motors Liquidation Company · No. 1:19-cv-06668
- Alison Nathan
- May 28, 2020
Background
Marianne OGrady, representing herself, appealed an order by Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding involving Motors Liquidation Company. The order approved a settlement involving the Motors Liquidation Company Avoidance Action Trust, the Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust, and other parties. The district court stated that it could not determine the exact nature of OGrady’s objection from her notice of appeal.
Failure to File a Brief
The district court issued scheduling orders giving OGrady deadlines to file a brief supporting her appeal. The court also directed her to a legal clinic for people representing themselves and told her that she could request additional time. After OGrady missed the deadline, the court extended it by several weeks and warned that failing to file a brief could lead to the court deciding or dismissing the appeal without further warning. OGrady still did not file a brief or otherwise communicate with the court. The appellees then asked the court to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that a district court may dismiss a bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. It considered the length of OGrady’s noncompliance, her notice that dismissal could result, the court’s interest in managing its docket, and whether a lesser sanction would work. The court found that OGrady had ignored procedural rules and several orders, had received multiple opportunities to participate, and had not offered an excuse. It concluded that a lesser sanction would be meaningless and unwarranted.
Disposition
Judge Alison J. Nathan dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute and stated in the conclusion that the appeal was dismissed with prejudice. The clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.