TERESA MOORE V. JOHN SPADARO, No. 18-16818 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 22 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In the Matter of: TERESA JEAN MOORE; JENNIFER LAUREN MOORE, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-16818 D.C. No. 5:17-cv-03760-EJD Debtors. MEMORANDUM* -----------------------------TERESA JEAN MOORE; JENNIFER LAUREN MOORE, Appellants, v. JOHN NELSO SPADARO; et al., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 14, 2020** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. * 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). Chapter 13 debtors Teresa Jean Moore and Jennifer Lauren Moore appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their 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). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellants’ appeal for failure to prosecute or by denying appellants further time to oppose defendant Kay’s motion to dismiss, after it previously provided them numerous extensions of time to perfect their appeal and opportunities to respond to the orders to show cause. See id. at 1451-56 (discussing factors for district court to weigh in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute; noting that dismissal should not be disturbed unless there is a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors); Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court has broad discretion to manage its docket). Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we do not consider appellants’ challenges to the bankruptcy court’s orders or judgment in the underlying adversary proceeding. 2 18-16818 Appellants’ motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 19) is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 3 18-16818
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.
