KENNETH GHARIB V. THOMAS CASEY, No. 17-55270 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS In re: KENNY G ENTERPRISES, LLC, No. 17-55270 Debtor. ______________________________ D.C. No. 8:16-cv-00848-GW KENNETH GHARIB, MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THOMAS H. CASEY, Chapter 7 Trustee, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Kenneth Gharib appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Morrissey v. Stuteville (In re Morrissey), 349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Gharib’s appeal because, despite being required by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to take certain actions within 14 days of filing the appeal, Gharib failed to do so more than six months after appealing. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(2) (an appellant’s failure to take steps to prosecute a bankruptcy appeal may be grounds for dismissal); In re Morrissey, 349 F.3d at 1190-91 (dismissal for noncompliance with procedural rules is proper, without explicit consideration of alternative sanctions, where procedural defects are egregious); Fitzsimmons v. Nolden (In re Fitzsimmons), 920 F.2d 1468, 1473-75 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming dismissal for failure to prosecute where appellant did not timely serve the designation of record, failed to take prompt steps to have reporter’s transcripts prepared, and failed to post the necessary fees or contact reporter until after the filing of the motion to dismiss). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gharib’s motion for rehearing because Gharib did not identify any error in the district court’s order dismissing his appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8022(a)(2); United States v. Fowler (In re Fowler), 394 F.3d 1208, 1214-15 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth standard of review and requiring a motion for rehearing to state with particularity each point of 2 17-55270 law or fact a court overlooked). Because we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the appeal, we do not consider Gharib’s challenges to the bankruptcy court’s decisions or the district court’s order denying Gharib’s request for release. See In re Morrissey, 349 F.3d at 1190; Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996). Gharib’s requests for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 8, 19) are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 17-55270
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.
