ANTONIA GARCIA MENDOZA V., No. 14-60026 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 25 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: ANTONIA GARCIA MENDOZA; FRANCISCO MORENO MAGANA, No. 14-60026 BAP No. 13-1499 Debtors, ______________________________ MEMORANDUM* ANTONIA GARCIA MENDOZA; FRANCISCO MORENO MAGANA, Appellants, v. DANIEL H. BRUNNER, Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Kirscher, Jury, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, 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 Antonia Garcia Mendoza and Francisco Moreno Magana (“debtors”) appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order dismissing for failure to prosecute their appeal from the bankruptcy court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for an abuse of discretion. Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re Morrissey), 349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The BAP did not abuse its discretion in dismissing debtors’ appeal for failure to file an adequate opening brief or excerpts of record after the BAP provided multiple warnings that failure to submit required materials would result in dismissal of the appeal. See id. at 1189-91; see also 9th Cir. BAP R. 8018(a)-2 (BAP may dismiss the appeal if appellant fails to file “an opening brief timely, or otherwise fails to comply with rules or orders regarding processing the appeal”); Clinton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (In re Clinton), 449 B.R. 79, 83 (9th Cir. BAP 2011) (pro se litigants in bankruptcy proceedings are not excused from compliance with procedural rules). We reject as without merit debtors’ contentions regarding due process and mandatory appointment of counsel. Because we affirm the BAP’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we do not consider debtors’ challenge to the bankruptcy court’s decisions. See In re 2 14-60026 Morrissey, 349 F.3d at 1190. AFFIRMED. 3 14-60026
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.
