Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stahl v. EMC Mortgage Corp.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


October 15, 2007

CHARLES B. STAHL & ARLENE G. STAHL, APPELLANTS
v.
EMC MORTGAGE CORP., APPELLEE

The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Conner)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 2007, upon consideration of the order of court dated September 12, 2007 (Doc. 5), directing pro se appellants to file a brief in support of their appeal on or before October 12, 2007 and advising them that their failure to do so could result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of their appeal, and it appearing that appellants have not complied as of the date of this order, see FED. R. BANKR. P. 8001(a) ("An appellant's failure to take any step other than timely filing a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for such action as the district court . . . deems appropriate, which may include dismissal of the appeal." (emphasis added)); Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984) (identifying six factors relevant to deciding whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute);*fn1 see also In re Richardson Indus. Contractors, Inc., 189 F. App'x 93, 96 (3d Cir. 2006) (extending consideration of Poulis factors to bankruptcy appeals), and the court finding that appellants were advised of the necessity of responding to the order of court dated September 12, 2007 and are personally responsible for failing to do so, see Poulis, 747 F.2d at 868 (identifying "extent of the party's personal responsibility" as a factor), that appellants' conduct has prejudiced appellee by requiring appellee to assume the cost of continued legal preparation, see id. (identifying "[p]rejudice to the adversary" as a factor), that appellants' failure to respond to the initial briefing deadlines in the above-captioned action and to the order of court dated September 12, 2007 constitute a history of dilatoriness, see id. (identifying "history of dilatoriness" as a factor), that appellants' failure to respond when specifically ordered to do so constitutes willful disregard of the court's authority, see id. at 868-69 (identifying "willful" or "bad faith" conduct as a factor), that alternative sanctions would be ineffective to deter appellants' conduct because the court is unable to move forward with the above-captioned action given the limited record before the court and the largely unintelligible nature of appellants' claims, see id. at 869 (identifying availability of "[a]lternative sanctions" to dismissal as a factor), and that appellants' claimsare likely withoutmerit,*fn2 see id. at 869-70 (identifying "[m]eritoriousness of the claim" as a factor), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The above-captioned appeal is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. See FED. R. BANKR. P. 8001(a)

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.