1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 In re Case No.: 25-cv-2164-RSH-MMP Bankruptcy Case No.: 21-03659-JBM7 12 DONNA LEE HERNANDEZ, 13 ORDER DISMISSING CASE Debtor. 14

15 DONNA LEE HERNANDEZ, 16

17 Appellant,

18 v. 19 RONALD E. STADTMUELLER, 20

21 Appellee.

22 23 24 On October 10, 2025, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this case 25 should not be dismissed for Appellant Donna Lee Hernandez’s failure to timely perfect her 26 appeal. ECF No. 3. For the reasons below, the Court dismisses the case. 27 /// 28 /// 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On August 21, 2025, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the bankruptcy court. 3 ECF No. 1. Appellant’s designation of record was due on September 4, 2025. ECF No. 1- 4 2 at 6. On October 10, 2025, the Court received a Notice of Unperfected Appeal from the 5 Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California. ECF 6 No. 2. On the same day, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) as to why the 7 instant appeal should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, based on Appellant’s failure 8 to timely designate the record. ECF No. 3. The OSC also provided that Appellant could 9 alternatively “show cause” by designating the record and perfecting the appeal. Id. at 2. 10 The Court cautioned Plaintiff that a “[f]ailure to timely show adequate cause shall result in 11 the dismissal without prejudice of this appeal.” Id. Appellant’s response to the OSC was 12 due on October 24, 2025. Id. Appellant did not file a response until October 26, 2025. ECF 13 No. 4. 14 II. ANALYSIS 15 Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009(a), an appellant must “file with 16 the bankruptcy clerk a designation of the items to be included in the record on appeal and 17 a statement of the issues to be presented[.]” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1)(A). “The 18 appellant must: file and serve the designation and statement within 14 days after . . . the 19 appellant’s notice of appeal as a right becomes effective under Rule 8002.” Fed. R. Bankr.

(a)(1)(B). A district court may dismiss a bankruptcy appeal if the appellant does 21 not follow the required procedural rules. See Kun v. State Bar of Cal.,

, 22 531 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding district court did not err by dismissing appeal for failure to 23 timely comply with Bankruptcy Rule 8009); see also Tong v. Luo (In re Luo), No. 96- 24 56125,

, at *1 (9th Cir. June 19, 1997) (district court did not err in 25 dismissing appeal for failure to timely designate record on appeal). 26 Additionally, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a “district court may 27 dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 28

(9th Cir. 1992). The decision of whether to dismiss a case for failure 1 to comply with a court order is within the district court’s discretion and will not be 2 disturbed “unless there is a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a 3 clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant 4 factors.”

(internal quotation marks omitted). “In determining whether to dismiss a case 5 for failure to comply with a court order the district court must weigh five factors including: 6 (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to 7 manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 8 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 9 Although it is preferred, it is not required that the district court make explicit findings in 10 order to show that it has considered these factors[.]”

at 1260–61 (internal quotation 11 marks omitted). 12 Here, in his OSC response, Appellant’s counsel attributes the delay in designating 13 the record to an international trip taken in September 2025 to care for an elderly parent. 14 ECF No. 4 at 3. Counsel requests an additional 30 days to complete the designation of 15 record. Id. at 2. Counsel also contends the complexity of this appeal necessitates additional 16 time to make the designation. Id. at 3–4. 17 The Court finds that Appellant’s response inadequately explains why counsel missed 18 the September 4, 2025 deadline in the first instance; and why, as of the issuance of the 19 Court’s OSC on October 10 2025, and even as of the OSC deadline on October 24, 2025, 20 Appellant had still failed to designate the record. Neither an unexpected international trip 21 in September, nor a lengthy docket, are inconsistent with the ability to meet these deadlines. 22 Here, the Court effectively granted Appellant a grace period of over seven weeks, and 23 provided a warning, all without any request on Appellant’s part; Appellant did not take 24 advantage of either. Appellant’s response also fails to explain why Appellant could not— 25 either by the original deadline or by the extended deadline—have timely moved for an 26 extension of time. 27 Appellant’s failure to comply with the bankruptcy rules without sufficient 28 explanation unreasonably delays the progress of this appeal, and the refusal to comply with 1 this Court’s OSC interferes with the Court’s ability to manage its own docket. See 2 Pagtalunan v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2002) (“It is incumbent upon the Court 3 to manage its docket without being subject to [the] routine noncompliance of litigants.”); 4 Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier,

, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he public’s interest in 5 expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”). 6 The Court also need not find that Appellee suffered actual prejudice to justify 7 dismissal. “The failure to prosecute diligently is sufficient by itself to justify a dismissal, 8 even in the absence of a showing of actual prejudice to the [opposing party] from the 9 failure.” Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen),

, 1452–53 (9th Cir. 1994). This 10 is because “the law presumes injury for unreasonable delay.”

. Although public 11 policy favors disposition of cases on their merits, the Court explicitly warned that failure 12 to timely comply with the Court’s deadline would result in dismissal of the case. See ECF 13 No. 3 at 2. 14 Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that dismissal is appropriate. See 15 Dodson v. Wildermuth (In re Dodson),

, 559 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding 16 district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellant’s appeal for failure to 17 prosecute where appellant received multiple notices explaining his obligation regarding 18 completing the record); Kun, 837 F. App’x at 531 (“The district court did not abuse its 19 discretion by dismissing [appellant’s] appeal after [appellant] failed to file the documents 20 required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009 in a timely manner.”); Norrie v. 21 Mallen (In re Norie),

, 934 (9th Cir. 2019) (“The district court did not 22 abuse its discretion by dismissing [appellant’s] appeal after [appellant] failed to file the 23 documents required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009, despite the district 24 court’s warning that noncompliance may result in dismissal.”). 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 For the above reasons, the Court DISMISSES this appeal. The Clerk of Court is 2 || DIRECTED to close the case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: October 28, 2025 ‘

6 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28