RIORDAN ZAVALA V. GEORGE SHARP, No. 16-55561 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 30 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: RIORDAN J. ZAVALA, also known as Riordan J. Zavala, Esq. also known as Law Offices of Riordan J. Zavala, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-55561 D.C. No. 8:14-cv-01489-JLS Debtor. MEMORANDUM* RIORDAN J. ZAVALA, Appellant, v. GEORGE A. SHARP, Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Chapter 7 debtor Riordan J. Zavala appeals pro se from the district court’s * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). order dismissing his bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th Cir. 1994), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Zavala’s appeal for failure to prosecute, after granting two extensions of time to file an opening brief, warning that no further extensions would be granted, and providing an opportunity for Zavala to respond to an order to show cause prior to dismissal. See id. at 1451-56 (discussing factors to weigh in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute; noting that “[a] reviewing court will give deference to the district court to decide what is unreasonable because it is in the best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its docket becomes unmanageable” (citations omitted)); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(4) (permitting district court to dismiss a bankruptcy appeal on its own motion, after notice, if an appellant fails to file a timely brief). AFFIRMED. 2 16-55561

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.