In Re: Rahul Dev Manchanda
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:23-cv-11308
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Rahul Dev Manchanda: Judge Seibel ordered Rahul Dev Manchanda to explain whether he would pursue his bankruptcy appeal.
Rahul Dev Manchanda, the appellant in the bankruptcy appeal, was required to respond by March 18, 2024; the United States Trustee is identified as the appellee.
What happened
In re Rahul Dev Manchanda concerns an appeal from a bankruptcy case. Rahul Dev Manchanda’s appeal was docketed in the Bankruptcy Court on June 7, 2023, but was not docketed in the District Court until December 29, 2023.
The District Court noted that no required record designation or statement of issues had been filed. The court also said the appeal might no longer involve a live issue, but did not decide that question.
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered Rahul Dev Manchanda to tell the court by March 18, 2024, whether he wanted to continue the appeal and, if so, why he had not filed the required documents. The court warned that failing to respond could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, but the order did not dismiss the appeal.
The detailed version
- In Re: Rahul Dev Manchanda · No. 7:23-cv-11308
- Cathy Seibel
- Mar. 4, 2024
Background
Rahul Dev Manchanda filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from a bankruptcy-court matter. The Bankruptcy Court docketed the notice on June 7, 2023. The appeal was docketed in the Southern District of New York on December 29, 2023. The United States Trustee is identified as the appellee.
Court’s concerns
The court stated that Manchanda had not filed a designation of the record or a statement of issues as required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009. Based on its review of the Bankruptcy Court docket, the court also said that the issue on appeal might be moot, meaning that there might no longer be a live dispute for the court to decide. The order did not resolve whether the appeal was moot.
Order
The court ordered Manchanda to advise it by March 18, 2024, whether he wished to pursue the appeal. If he wished to proceed, he also had to explain why he had not filed the documents required by Rule 8009. The court warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The court did not dismiss the appeal in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.