In Re: Paul R Koch
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:24-cv-02838
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Koch v. Frost, Judge Seibel ordered Koch to explain missed bankruptcy-appeal filings or risk dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Paul R. Koch, whose bankruptcy appeal was at risk of dismissal if he did not respond and file the required documents by May 15, 2024.
What happened
In re Paul R. Koch v. Thomas C. Frost concerns Koch’s interlocutory appeal from a bankruptcy matter. The appeal was docketed in the district court on April 15, 2024.
More than 14 days passed without Koch filing the required list of record items and statement of the issues for appeal. The court said those filings are mandatory and that an appeal cannot proceed without them, unless Koch shows a legally excusable reason for the delay.
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered Koch to state by May 15, 2024, whether he wanted to continue the appeal and, if so, explain the missed filings and why the failure should be excused. The court warned that failing to respond or file the documents by that date might result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- In Re: Paul R Koch · No. 7:24-cv-02838
- Cathy Seibel
- May 1, 2024
Background
Paul R. Koch, identified as the debtor and appellant, filed an interlocutory appeal involving Thomas C. Frost, identified as the appellee. The appeal was docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 15, 2024.
Rule 8009 Requirements
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009 requires an appellant to file a designation of the items to be included in the appellate record and a statement of the issues to be presented on appeal. The court stated that these filings are mandatory because a bankruptcy appeal cannot proceed without them. The court also stated that missing the deadline may result in dismissal unless the appellant demonstrates excusable neglect, meaning a legally sufficient reason for the failure.
Order
More than 14 days had passed without Koch filing either required document. The court ordered Koch to advise it by May 15, 2024, whether he wished to pursue the appeal. If he wished to continue, he also had to explain why he did not timely file the Rule 8009 documents and why that failure should be excused. Judge Cathy Seibel warned that failure to respond by May 15, 2024, or failure to file the designation and statement by that date, might result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order did not itself dismiss the appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.