Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 21, 2024

In Re: Ditech Holding Corporation

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:23-cv-08989
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
BankruptcyCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In re Ditech Holding Corporation: Judge Liman dismissed the appellant’s bankruptcy appeal with prejudice after the appellant failed to file a required record designation.

Who this affects

The appellant, Viatcheslav Strekalov, whose appeal was dismissed with prejudice, and the bankruptcy matter involving DITECH HOLDING CORPORATION, et al.

What happened

In re DITECH HOLDING CORPORATION, et al. involved an appeal in a bankruptcy case. The court had ordered the appellant to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed for failing to file a designation of the items to include in the appellate record.

The required designation had to be filed within 14 days after the notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009(a)(1)(B). The court also directed the appellant to address whether the failure resulted from excusable neglect. The appellant did not take the required action after receiving a warning that the appeal could be dismissed.

Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed the appeal with prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8009(a)(1)(B) and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
In Re: Ditech Holding Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-08989
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Mar. 21, 2024

Background

This was an appeal in the bankruptcy matter involving DITECH HOLDING CORPORATION, et al. The opinion identifies the appellant as pro se, meaning the appellant was proceeding without a lawyer.

Procedural History

On October 16, 2023, the court ordered the appellant to show cause—explain why the appeal should not be dismissed—for failing to file a designation of the items to be included in the record on appeal within 14 days after filing the notice of appeal. The court stated that Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009(a)(1)(B) required that filing. The court also directed the appellant to address whether the failure constituted excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9006(b)(1).

Because of the appellant’s pro se status, the court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to the appellant’s last known address. The opinion states that the appellant had been warned that failing to file the necessary designation could result in dismissal, but took no action.

Ruling

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8003(a)(2) provides that an appellant’s failure to take a required step other than timely filing a notice of appeal is grounds for dismissing the appeal. The court therefore dismissed the appeal with prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8009(a)(1)(B). It directed the Clerk of Court to mail the Memorandum and Order to appellant Viatcheslav Strekalov and to close the case.

Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the order on March 21, 2024.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.