In re: Disciplinary Proceeding of Bruce M. Greenfield

Opinion

FILED OCT 1 2013

SUSAN M. SPRAUL, CLERK

1 U.S. BKCY. APP. PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

2 3 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL 4 OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT 5 In re: ) BAP No. CC-13-1006-KiTaKu )

6 DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING ) MP No. 2:11-00179-TD OF BRUCE M. GREENFIELD, )

7 )

)

8 BRUCE M. GREENFIELD, )

)

9 Appellant, )

)

10 v. ) M E M O R A N D U M1 )

11 PETER C. ANDERSON, UNITED )

STATES TRUSTEE, REGION 16, )

12 )

Appellee. )

13 ______________________________) 14 Submitted Without Oral Argument on September 19, 2013,2

15 Filed - October 1, 2013

16 Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court 17 for the Central District of California 18 Hons. Thomas B. Donovan, Erithe A. Smith and Sandra R. Klein, Bankruptcy Judges, presiding 19 20 Appearances: Appellant Bruce M. Greenfield pro se on brief;

Ramona D. Elliott, P. Matthew Sutko, Cameron M.

21 Gulden, Peter C. Anderson, Jennifer L. Braun and Katherine C. Bunker on brief for appellee Peter C.

22 Anderson, United States Trustee. 23 Before: KIRSCHER, TAYLOR and KURTZ, Bankruptcy Judges.

24 25 1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication.

Although it may be cited for whatever persuasive value it may have 26 (see Fed. R. App. P. 32.1), it has no precedential value. See 9th Cir. BAP Rule 8013-1.

27

2

On August 2, 2013, the Panel unanimously determined that 28 this appeal was suitable for submission on the briefs and record without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8012.

1 Appellant, Bruce M. Greenfield ("Greenfield"),3 appeals an 2 order from the bankruptcy court denying his motion under Civil 3 Rule 60(b) to vacate a disciplinary order entered against him. We 4 AFFIRM. 5 We begin by noting the severe deficiencies in Greenfield's 6 appellate brief and excerpts of the record. His brief fails to 7 include a table of contents, a table of cases, a statement of the 8 basis of appellate jurisdiction, a statement of the issues 9 presented on appeal, a statement of the facts or the case, any 10 argument, citations to relevant authorities or the record, and a 11 conclusion. These deficiencies are severe violations of 12 Rule 8010(b)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F).4 For these 13 reasons, we have the authority to strike Greenfield's brief and 14 dismiss his appeal for failing to comply with the rules of 15 appellate briefing. See N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 16 127 F.3d 1145, 1146 (9th Cir. 1997). Greenfield's excerpts of the 17 record are also woefully inadequate, consisting only of his motion 18 to vacate, the first page of the nine-page related order, and the 19 letter from his physician filed in support of his motion. Many 20 necessary documents are missing in violation of Rule 8009(b). 21 The United States Trustee ("Trustee") provided in his 22 response brief a proper accounting of the facts and complete 23 excerpts of the record, consisting of over 1,400 pages. 24 25 3 Mr. Greenfield, Bar No. 80122, was admitted to the California bar in 1978.

26

4

Unless specified otherwise, all chapter, code and rule 27 references are to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532, and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Rules 1001-9037. The 28 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are referred to as “Civil Rules.”

3

1 Therefore, considering that we have a complete record and the 2 severity of this matter, we exercise our discretion to review the 3 merits of this appeal, keeping in mind that we can affirm on any 4 basis supported by the record. Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 5 1086 (9th Cir. 2008). 6 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 7 A. Authority for disciplinary proceedings 8 The Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California 9 provides a process for the discipline of attorneys appearing 10 before it. Fourth Amended General Order 96-05 authorizes 11 bankruptcy judges in the district to recommend that disciplinary 12 proceedings be commenced against an attorney. Upon a judge's 13 recommendation, otherwise known as a "referral," the Clerk of 14 Court then randomly selects three other bankruptcy judges in the 15 district to serve on a panel for a disciplinary proceeding, and 16 notice of the proceeding is sent to the attorney and the United 17 States Trustee. 18 The panel may solicit information about the attorney from 19 other bankruptcy judges in the district, and must set and provide 20 notice of a hearing date. The attorney then has the opportunity 21 to file a response and may appear at the disciplinary hearing and 22 present evidence to refute any of the allegations. The United 23 States Trustee may also appear and participate in the presentation 24 of evidence. 25 After the hearing, the disciplinary panel rules by majority 26 vote. The panel is authorized to issue an order of discipline and 27 a memorandum of decision. The order of discipline becomes final 28 14 days after entry or, if a motion for rehearing is filed,

4

1 14 days after entry of the order disposing of that motion. 2 B. The disciplinary referral against Greenfield 3 On August 30, 2011, by way of a referral to the Clerk of 4 Court, the Hon. Victoria S. Kaufman, Bankruptcy Judge for the 5 Central District of California, recommended that a disciplinary 6 proceeding be commenced against Greenfield. In support, 7 Judge Kaufman offered pleadings filed by Trustee in a chapter 7 8 case in which Greenfield had represented the debtor, Leonard 9 Greenfield & Assoc. CPA, an entity owned by Greenfield's father. 10 In that case, Greenfield had filed an appearance for the initial 11 pro se debtor on the filing date of the petition just after the 12 bankruptcy judge was assigned to the case. In less than a month, 13 the debtor, through Greenfield, filed a motion to convert the case 14 to chapter 11. Trustee’s pleadings included his response to an 15 OSC (entered by Judge Kaufman on May 20, 2011) for why the case 16 should not be dismissed with a 180-day bar and Trustee's request 17 for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and Trustee's 18 supplemental response, filed on June 9 and on July 15, 2011, 19 respectively. 20 According to the referral, upon consideration of Trustee's 21 responsive pleadings and her own observations, Judge Kaufman 22 determined: "Greenfield is not sufficiently competent or qualified 23 to represent debtors in chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. He does not 24 possess sufficient experience and is not familiar with the 25 Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules and the Local Rules 26 applicable in chapter 11 bankruptcy cases." The referral also 27 noted that other judges had denied Greenfield's employment in 28 representing chapter 11 debtors, and that his conduct in prior

5

1 chapter 11 bankruptcy cases (and others) had resulted in 2 disgorgement of compensation and imposition of sanctions against 3 him. For example, in March 2010, the Hon. Maureen A. Tighe 4 ordered Greenfield to disgorge fees of $2,500 to a client. In 5 December 2007, Judge Tighe imposed sanctions of approximately 6 $78,000 jointly and severally against Greenfield and his clients 7 for improper litigation tactics. That matter was referred to the 8 state bar disciplinary committee. In September 2004, the 9 Hon. Alan M. Ahart ordered two sanctions for contempt against 10 Greenfield, awarding $3,317 to opposing counsel for Greenfield's 11 harassment of her in a case and ordering a sanction of $9,200.19 12 against Greenfield under Rule 9011 in another case for the 13 opposing parties' attorney's fees. Greenfield's appeal of the 14 contempt orders was deemed "frivolous" by this Panel, and counsel 15 was awarded sanctions for double costs of $658.88.5 16 In Trustee's pleadings, it was also shown that Greenfield had 17 exhibited a pattern of filing multiple pleadings in bad faith and 18 for improper purposes in several cases, causing unjustified delay 19 and unduly burdening the bankruptcy system. For example, in the 20 chapter 11 case In re 21st Century Props., Inc. 21 (1:09-bk-27480-GM), an entity for which Greenfield was bankruptcy 22 counsel, president and CEO, Greenfield had filed numerous motions, 23 which were noticed to be heard months after being filed, and then 24

5

According to a pleading filed by Trustee on March 7, 2012, 25 Greenfield has failed to comply with any disgorgement and sanctions orders issued against him, including a January 19, 2012 26 sanction for $1,000 issued against Greenfield by the Hon. Peter H.

Carroll for his repeated failure to file documents electronically 27 in violation of LBR 5005-4. Judge Carroll also suspended Greenfield from practice in the Central District until he obtained 28 an ECF log-in and password.

6

1 filed numerous continuances of these motions, without court 2 permission and for no legitimate reason. Trustee also had reason 3 to believe that Greenfield had forged certain clients' signatures 4 on various documents filed with the court. Finally, Trustee noted 5 that of the nine chapter 11 cases Greenfield had filed since 1999, 6 no plan had been confirmed in any of them. 7 Judge Kaufman's referral also detailed Greenfield's pattern 8 over the past three years of concealing his identity as counsel in 9 cases until a judge was assigned, so he then could determine if 10 the particular case was being assigned to a judge who had 11 sanctioned him in the past. To accomplish this, clients were 12 advised to file in pro se, despite Greenfield's preparation of the 13 bankruptcy documents. To conceal his existence, Greenfield would 14 insert the typewritten words "Debtor not represented by attorney" 15 in the attorney signature space on his clients' petitions. If the 16 assigned judge had sanctioned him, Greenfield would advise his 17 clients to allow the case to be dismissed, against their better 18 interests, so he could refile and obtain the assignment of a 19 different judge. If the assigned judge had not sanctioned him, 20 Greenfield would immediately file, often on the same day, a 21 substitution of attorney and become counsel of record. This 22 latter scenario occurred in Greenfield's father's bankruptcy case 23 before Judge Kaufman. 24 C. The disciplinary proceeding and the panel's decision 25 On September 29, 2011, the Clerk of Court issued and served 26 an order notifying Greenfield that a disciplinary proceeding had

7

1 been initiated against him.6 Attached to the notice were Judge 2 Kaufman's referral and Trustee's supporting documents offered in 3 the response and supplemental response to the OSC. 4 On October 24, 2011, the bankruptcy court issued a notice 5 advising Greenfield that the disciplinary proceeding had been set 6 for December 12, 2011.7 The notice informed Greenfield that he 7 could appear with counsel and/or present evidence. The notice 8 further informed him that the Federal Rules of Evidence applied 9 and that an official record of the proceedings would be maintained 10 as though it were a contested matter. Greenfield was required to 11 file any written statements or declarations in response to the 12 disciplinary charges as least seven days prior to the hearing. 13 At Greenfield's request, the disciplinary panel continued the 14 hearing until February 13, 2012, and then again until March 19, 15 2012. The panel also extended the time for him to file any 16 written response until March 12, 2012. The last notice of 17 continued hearing relating to the March 19 hearing, which was 18 issued on February 9, 2012, advised Greenfield that "[n]o further 19 continuances or delay tactics [would] be accepted." Four days 20 after issuance of that notice, by a letter dated February 10, 21 2012, Greenfield reported to the panel that he was suffering from 22 a long-term medical condition relating to his ear. He again 23 requested a continuance of the February 13 hearing. However, by 24 then the panel had already granted his request for a continuance 25 26 6 The disciplinary panel consisted of the Hon. Thomas B.

Donovan, the Hon. Erithe A. Smith and the Hon. Sandra R. Klein.

27

7

An amended notice was issued three days later, changing the 28 hearing time from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.

8

1 of that hearing, which it reset for March 19, 2012. 2 On February 9, 2012, the disciplinary panel issued a request 3 to all bankruptcy judges in the Central District to file and serve 4 information regarding Greenfield's conduct, along with supporting 5 evidence, by March 1, 2012. Greenfield was given until March 12 6 to respond to any judicial submissions. 7 On February 21, 2012, Greenfield filed a third request for 8 continuance, contending that the March 12 briefing deadline placed 9 him under an undue burden to file timely responses due to an 10 alleged improper mailing address that was used by the court. 11 Specifically, Greenfield stated that "since Respondent is actually 12 in suite 403 — according to the lease with the landlord — and the 13 court's mailing list indicates suite 404 and suite 405 — which as 14 a result of this situation — results in a lengthy delay in receipt 15 of mail — and may only provide Respondent with 3 to 5 days; after 16 service of Additional Information by 3/1/12 — to timely respond 17 thereto to each by 3/12/12." Notably, Greenfield's pleading 18 making this assertion indicated his Suite number as 404, as had 19 all previous (and subsequent) pleadings he filed. On March 1, 20 2012, the panel entered an order denying the third request for 21 continuance. The order also reminded Greenfield that his written 22 response to the allegations in the referral remained due on 23 March 12, 2012. The March 1 order, and all further correspondence 24 from the court, was also sent to Greenfield's home address. 25 On March 2, 2012, Greenfield filed a "Notice of 'Inactive' 26 Status of Respondent Bruce Greenfield," in which he requested an 27 additional 90-day continuance of the disciplinary hearing, because 28 he was seeking reconsideration of a California State Bar order

9

1 that placed him on inactive status. On March 5, 2012, the panel 2 denied this fourth request, noting that current deadlines remained 3 in effect and that the disciplinary hearing was going forward on 4 March 19, 2012. 5 Meanwhile, the Hon. Geraldine Mund and Judge Ahart filed 6 responses to the disciplinary panel's information request on 7 February 16 and February 29, 2012, respectively. Coincidentally, 8 Judge Mund had filed a referral for a disciplinary action against 9 Greenfield on February 7, 2012, two days prior to the issuance of 10 the February 9 information request. In her attached referral, 11 Judge Mund expressed her concerns with Greenfield's conduct in his 12 own bankruptcy case, as well as the bankruptcy cases of his 13 related entities (in which he purported to be counsel). This 14 conduct included, among other things, several transfers of 15 fractionalized interests in a leased vehicle followed by a series 16 of bankruptcy filings to prevent repossession. Judge Mund also 17 noted the same concern with Greenfield's filing of cases for 18 entities as pro se to see which judge is assigned, then filing a 19 substitution of attorney naming himself as counsel after the 20 assignment of the bankruptcy judge. She further noted his pattern 21 of trying to convert each case from one chapter to another. 22 Judge Mund opined that Greenfield's conduct was "a massive abuse 23 of the bankruptcy system . . . actionable as to an attorney who 24 has represented clients in bankruptcy for at least the last ten 25 years." 26 In his response to the information request, Judge Ahart 27 provided more detail explaining the basis for the sanctions he 28 issued against Greenfield in 2004.

10

1 On March 8, 2012, three days after the disciplinary panel 2 denied his fourth continuance request, Greenfield filed a "Reply 3 to Notice of Appearance (Filed by Office of U.S. Trustee)," 4 wherein he contended that the disciplinary hearing should not go 5 forward as "there [was] no useful purpose for either: the 6 respondent or the panel (or judges which submitted additional 7 information); to participate at the hearing — unless Respondent is 8 permitted to propose a Chapter 13 payment plan[.]" (Emphasis in 9 original). He then filed a "Proposed Stipulation" the following 10 day, requesting yet another continuance of the March 19 hearing. 11 In that, Greenfield consented to an interim suspension from the 12 bankruptcy court until such time as his "inactive" status with the 13 state bar was vacated. 14 On March 9, 2012, the disciplinary panel entered two orders. 15 The first order found that Greenfield's March 8 pleading was 16 "neither correct nor persuasive" in its argument that the 17 disciplinary hearing served no purpose and confirmed that it would 18 proceed on March 19. The second order rejected Greenfield's 19 proposed stipulation. 20 The disciplinary hearing proceeded on March 19, 2012, at 21 10:00 a.m. Counsel for Trustee appeared. The panel adjourned 22 until 10:18 a.m., waiting for Greenfield to arrive. He did not 23 appear. He also did not file any responsive brief or evidence to 24 refute Judge Kaufman's referral or Trustee's further pleadings. 25 At the hearing, Trustee reiterated the laundry list of 26 Greenfield's misconduct, noting that Greenfield had failed to pay 27 outstanding sanctions of more than $80,000 in the Central District 28 of California and $20,000 in the Southern District. Trustee

11

1 recommended that Greenfield's right to practice law in the Central 2 District be suspended for five years. The panel took the matter 3 under advisement. 4 On June 27, 2012, the disciplinary panel entered its order of 5 discipline ("Disciplinary Order") and Memorandum. In its detailed 6 and well-supported twenty-five page decision, the panel found that 7 Greenfield: (1) had repeatedly failed to comply with court orders 8 or pay sanctions; (2) had repeatedly abused court procedures; and 9 (3) had abandoned clients. Based on those findings, the panel 10 concluded that Greenfield's conduct warranted discipline and 11 ordered that: 12 • Greenfield be suspended from the practice of law before the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District for five 13 years; 14 • Greenfield comply with and demonstrate compliance with all outstanding disgorgement and sanctions orders;

15 • in any future application for reinstatement Greenfield 16 include a declaration (a) explaining his actions in these cited cases and (b) describing the remedial steps 17 taken by him to demonstrate that he has complied with every outstanding order and to assure the court that he 18 will practice in a manner in compliance with the rules and orders of the court; and 19 • that a copy of the Memorandum and Disciplinary Order be 20 filed with the California State Bar. 21 The Disciplinary Order and Memorandum were served on Greenfield at 22 his location of business (Suites 404 and 405) and his personal 23 residence. He did not file an appeal. The Disciplinary Order 24 became final 14 days after entry, on July 11, 2012. 25 D. Greenfield's motion to vacate the Disciplinary Order 26 On November 19, 2012, Greenfield moved to vacate the 27 Disciplinary Order under Civil Rule 60(b)(1) for "excusable 28 neglect." Greenfield contended that a medical condition

12

1 concerning his ear, which required surgery, had prevented him from 2 attending the March 19, 2012 hearing. Attached was a letter from 3 Greenfield's physician, dated March 22, 2012, stating that 4 Greenfield had "a chronic ear condition for almost 20 years," and 5 that he had "recently redeveloped the fluid problem in the left 6 ear during an upper respiratory infection." The physician stated 7 that Greenfield's symptoms of hearing loss, discomfort in the left 8 ear and dizziness left him "unable to attend court because of his 9 inability to drive." The physician did not specify which day 10 Greenfield was "unable to attend court." Greenfield also 11 contended that the delay between entry of the Disciplinary Order 12 and the filing of this motion was due to the closure of his office 13 on April 30, 2012, which caused him to be unaware of the panel's 14 decision until October 25, 2012. 15 Trustee opposed the motion to vacate, contending that 16 Greenfield had failed to establish excusable neglect to warrant 17 vacating the Disciplinary Order. Trustee disputed Greenfield's 18 "delay" contention, asserting that it could not be based on an 19 alleged non-receipt of the order due to his office closure, when a 20 copy of the order had also been sent to Greenfield's home. 21 Alternatively, argued Trustee, because Greenfield knew about the 22 disciplinary proceeding, he could have contacted the court or 23 checked the electronic docket to determine the result of the 24 hearing or whether any order had been entered. 25 Trustee also disputed Greenfield's argument that a medical 26 condition prevented him from attending the hearing as not 27 supported by evidence to justify his lack of response. The 28 physician's letter was not sworn and was inadmissable hearsay.

13

1 The letter was also dated after the March 19 hearing, and it 2 provided no specific dates or information regarding when 3 Greenfield allegedly was ill or what court hearing he allegedly 4 was unable to attend. Even if Greenfield's condition had 5 prevented him from attending the March 19 hearing, argued Trustee, 6 Greenfield provided no reasonable justification for why he failed 7 to file any written response before the hearing, when he had over 8 five months to do so. 9 Attached to Trustee's opposition was a copy of an email from 10 Greenfield to counsel for Trustee, dated March 19, 2012, 4:31 p.m. 11 Greenfield's email made no reference to any illness and provided 12 no explanation for why he had failed to appear at the disciplinary 13 hearing earlier that day. 14 E. The disciplinary panel's decision on the motion to vacate 15 The disciplinary panel entered an order on December 19, 2012, 16 denying Greenfield's motion to vacate ("Order"). The panel 17 concluded that the motion was not made "within a reasonable time" 18 and did not meet the standards for vacating an order under Civil 19 Rule 60(b) and (c) or Rule 9024. This timely appealed followed. 20 II. JURISDICTION 21 The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 22 and 157(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(b). 23 III. ISSUE 24 Did the bankruptcy court abuse its discretion in denying the 25 motion to vacate the Disciplinary Order? 26 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW 27 We review the denial of a Civil Rule 60(b) motion for relief 28 from a final judgment or order for abuse of discretion.

14

1 Pilkington v. Cardinal Health, Inc. (In re Syncor ERISA Litig.), 2 516 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th Cir. 2008); Alonso v. Summerville 3 (In re Summerville), 361 B.R. 133, 139 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). A 4 bankruptcy court abuses its discretion if it applied the wrong 5 legal standard or its findings were illogical, implausible or 6 without support in the record. TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver 7 Inc., 653 F.3d 820, 832 (9th Cir. 2011). 8 V. DISCUSSION 9 In Greenfield's one-sentence brief, he asserts that the 10 disciplinary panel abused its discretion in denying the motion to 11 vacate for excusable neglect based upon the medical evidence he 12 provided in support. He also argues that the motion was filed 13 within a reasonable period of time after entry of the Disciplinary 14 Order. In other words, Greenfield disputes the disciplinary 15 panel's findings of fact. As such, we can reverse only if we 16 conclude that its findings were illogical, implausible or without 17 support in the record. TrafficSchool.com, Inc., 653 F.3d at 832. 18 We do not so conclude. 19 A. Motions under Civil Rule 60(b) 20 Civil Rule 60(b)(1), incorporated by Rule 9024, provides that 21 "[o]n motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party . . . 22 from a final . . . order . . . for . . . excusable neglect." To 23 determine whether neglect is excusable, the court reviews the four 24 factors set forth in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. 25 Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993): "'(1) the danger of 26 prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and 27 its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the 28 delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.'" Lemoge

15

1 v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009)(quoting 2 Bateman v. USPS, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (citing Pioneer, 507 U.S. 3 at 395)). However, these factors are non-exclusive, and the trial 4 court can take "account of all relevant circumstances surrounding 5 the party's omission" in making an equitable determination. 6 Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395. 7 Although not raised by Greenfield, we conclude that the 8 disciplinary panel applied the correct legal standard by 9 articulating and reviewing the factors set forth in Pioneer. The 10 panel examined the length and reasons for the delay and also found 11 that Greenfield had not acted in good faith. Prejudice to the 12 opposing party was not at issue, because the disciplinary 13 proceeding was initiated by the bankruptcy court. 14 B. The disciplinary panel did not clearly err in finding that Greenfield had failed to establish excusable neglect.

15 16 It its well-reasoned decision, the disciplinary panel found 17 that Greenfield's motion to vacate was "neither persuasive nor 18 credible under the circumstances." Disciplinary Order (Dec. 19, 19 2012) 2:16.5-17.5. After carefully reciting the proceeding's 20 procedural history, the panel found that Greenfield's motion was 21 "just the latest in [a] series of delaying tactics[.]" Id. at 22 6:18. Rather than excusable neglect, the panel found that the 23 motion "support[ed] a finding of obstinance or willful disregard 24 by Greenfield of the court's General Order and the Panel's 25 implementing orders," (id. at 6:21-22) and that Greenfield was 26 "not acting in good faith" (id. at 6:22). 27 The disciplinary panel was not persuaded by Greenfield's 28 claim that his medical condition prevented him from filing a

16

1 written response or appearing at the March 19 hearing: 2 Greenfield reported his medical condition to the court on February 10, 2012, after his third [continuance] request 3 was denied by the Panel. Then, for a variety of reasons, he made several further requests to delay the March 19, 4 2012 hearing, none of which mentioned medical issues.

Greenfield filed four additional [continuance] requests 5 before the Panel's March 12, 2012 deadline for Greenfield's substantive response to the charges. . . .

6 The Panel concludes that the primary reason for Greenfield's requests was his hope for endless (or at 7 least extensive) extensions of the deadline for him to file any response to the pending charges. This pattern 8 undermines, in the Panel's view, any plausible claim that ear problems motivated Greenfield's attempts to delay the 9 March 19, 2012 hearing. 10 . . . . 11 Greenfield disregarded several opportunities available to him, during more than five months — from September 29, 12 2011 until March 12, 2012 — to file any evidence or substantive response he wished to present as a 13 meritorious defense to the pending charges. Even in his Motion, Greenfield offers no substantive response to the 14 disciplinary charges. 15 Id. at 6:24-7:1, 7:4-9, 8:3-8. The panel noted that the 16 physician's letter, which was dated three days after the March 19 17 hearing and stated only that Greenfield's "symptoms" rendered him 18 unable to attend court, was never corroborated with any evidence 19 that he actually had surgery to deal with the medical issue "on or 20 about March 19, 2012."8 21

8

22 In his excerpts of the record, Greenfield included a copy of an invoice from his ear physician. This document does not 23 appear to have been presented to the bankruptcy court. As such, we generally will not consider it. Oyama v. Sheehan 24 (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 512 n.5 (9th Cir. 2001)("Evidence that was not before the lower court will not generally be 25 considered on appeal."); Kirschner v. Uniden Corp. of Am., 842 F.2d 1074, 1077–78 (9th Cir. 1988)(court is concerned only 26 with the record before the trial court when it made its decision).

However, even if we did, the invoice actually cuts against 27 Greenfield. It shows that he received treatment, perhaps a surgical procedure, on March 22, 2012, which was three days after 28 (continued...)

17

1 Ultimately, the panel concluded that the record did not 2 warrant granting Greenfield's motion to vacate: 3 [The motion] reveals an unmistakable pattern of seemingly endless denial, avoidance, and delaying tactics based 4 upon spurious and ill-supported cause. It appears that Greenfield's tactics were designed to generate an endless 5 string of delays to shield Greenfield from the need to file a written response to serious charges filed and 6 served more than a year before in this disciplinary proceeding.

7 . . . .

8 The Panel believes that the charges were properly 9 evaluated after due notice and reasonable and ample opportunity for Greenfield to present a meritorious 10 defense prior to the March 19 hearing. He did not do so.

His neglect or failure to provide such a defense in these 11 circumstances is not excusable. 12 Id. at 8:10-15, 8:20-24. 13 Based upon Greenfield's repeated requests for continuances, 14 only one of which mentioned any medical condition, his failure to 15 file any written response to the pending charges despite his 16 ability to file numerous other pleadings, and the lack of any 17 competent evidence of his medical condition, the panel properly 18 questioned the legitimacy of Greenfield's claim that his ear 19 condition prevented him from responding or appearing at the 20 March 19 hearing. Accordingly, we conclude that the disciplinary 21 panel did not clearly err in finding that Greenfield's motion 22 failed to establish excusable neglect under Civil Rule 60(b)(1). 23 //// 24 /// 25 26

8

(...continued)

27 the hearing and coincides with the date of the physician's letter.

This evidence undermines Greenfield's contention in his motion to 28 vacate that he had surgery "on or about March 19, 2012."

18

1 C. The disciplinary panel did not clearly err in finding that the motion to vacate was not filed within a reasonable time.

2 3 A Civil Rule 60(b)(1) motion "must be made within a 4 reasonable time," and in any event "no more than a year after 5 entry of the judgment or order[.]" Civil Rule 60(c). "[A] court 6 may deny a Rule 60(b)(1) motion, even if it was filed within the 7 one-year period, if the moving party 'was guilty of laches or 8 unreasonable delay.'" Hidais v. Porter, 2010 WL 760561, at *1 9 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2010)(quoting Meadows v. Dom. Rep., 817 F.2d 10 517, 520-21 (9th Cir. 1987)). "'What constitutes 'reasonable 11 time' within the meaning of Rule 60(c)(1), depends upon the facts 12 of each case, taking into consideration the interest in finality, 13 the reason for delay, the practical ability of the litigant to 14 learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and prejudice to the 15 other parties.'" Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1196 (quoting Ashford v. 16 Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981)(per curiam)). 17 Greenfield offers no supporting argument for why the 18 disciplinary panel erred in finding that filing the motion to 19 vacate five months after entry of the Disciplinary Order was not 20 reasonably timely. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th 21 Cir. 1999)(issues not raised in appellant's opening brief are 22 deemed waived). Further, because we have already determined that 23 the motion was properly denied for failing to establish excusable 24 neglect, we need not address whether it was also properly denied 25 for not being reasonably timely. 26 Nonetheless, we see no error here. The record reflects that 27 Greenfield was promptly served with the Memorandum and 28 Disciplinary Order at both his place of business and personal

19

1 residence in June 2012, and that no documents were ever returned 2 to the court as undeliverable. Further, as a practicing 3 bankruptcy attorney in a court that maintains an electronic 4 docket, Greenfield was capable of checking the electronic docket 5 to determine the disposition, if any, of the disciplinary 6 proceeding. Therefore, his contention that he did not discover 7 the panel's ruling until October 25, 2012, for non-service lacks 8 merit and credibility. Lastly, because of Greenfield's long- 9 standing misconduct, the disciplinary panel had an interest in the 10 finality of the charges brought against him. A final decision in 11 this matter was necessary to prevent any further potential harm to 12 the public, other attorneys, and the court. 13 VI. CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26