Dao et al, No. 4:2016cv01381 - Document 55 (S.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION denying 53 MOTION for Extension of Time File Motion for Rehearing and denying 54 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing Nunc Pro Tunc (Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(jdav, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dao et al Doc. 55 Case 4:16-cv-01381 Document 55 Filed in TXSD on 06/27/18 Page 1 of 2 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION HOA DAO, et al, Appellants, VS. RONALD J SOMMERS, Appellee. § § § § § § § § June 29, 2018 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-1381 ORDER AND OPINION Pending before the Court is Appellant’s, Hoa T. Dao, Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing Nunc Pro Tunc, Doc. 53, and Appellants’, Quynh Nhu Dao, and Thuy Vi Dao, Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing Nunc Pro Tunc, Doc. 54. The Trustee has not yet responded. Having considered the facts in the record; and the applicable law, the Court concludes that the Motion should be denied. Hoa concedes that she “applied the wrong rule and missed the deadline [to file a motion for rehearing] by 14 days.” Doc. 53 at 5. But Hoa asks that the court allow an extension of time to file the motion for rehearing under Bankruptcy Rule 8002 and 9006 to allow her “to pursue an appeal on a timely basis without any prejudice to the Trustee.” Id. at 6. Similarly, Quynh and Thuy request that the Court either “Reconsider its Order signed on 6/7/2018 pertaining to our Motion for Rehearing” or alternatively, “grant all Appellants in this matter an Order allowing an extension to enlarge time of 30 days from the Court decision on this Motion to Reconsider” under “excusable neglect.” Doc. 54 at 4. The Court, in its Order and Opinion, has already determined that ignorance of the rules does not usually constitute excusable neglect and the Appellants have not presented a compelling argument that their neglect was excusable in this instance. Doc. 52 at 3 (citing see Pioneer Inv. 1/2 Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:16-cv-01381 Document 55 Filed in TXSD on 06/27/18 Page 2 of 2 Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 392, 113 S. Ct. 1489, 1496, 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993)). And that a danger of prejudice does not exist to the debtor by denying the motions as untimely. Id. (citing see id.). The Court finds no reason to alter its decision. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Appellant’s, Hoa T. Dao, Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing Nunc Pro Tunc, Doc. 53, and Appellants’, Quynh Nhu Dao, and Thuy Vi Dao, Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing Nunc Pro Tunc, Doc. 54, are both DENIED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 27th day of June, 2018. ___________________________________ MELINDA HARMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2/2
]]>
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.
