Martin v. Kruidenier
This text of 95 F. App'x 181 (Martin v. Kruidenier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
On May 21, the court ordered the parties to submit supplemental memoranda on the question whether a statute of limitations or the equitable defense of laches rendered Appellant Martin’s claim under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) frivolous. We instructed the parties to the appeal to file their responses within fourteen days. Appellee Erwin timely filed a response. Martin did not.
Instead. Martin filed an emergency motion for extra time. Although this motion was untimely, we granted the request in part, ordering Martin to lodge his supplemental memorandum in the clerk’s office by the close of business on July 1. In our order we warned Martin that the appeal might be dismissed for failure to prosecute if he did not comply. Nevertheless. Martin did not file a timely response. Accordingly, the appeal is
DISMISSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 F. App'x 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-kruidenier-ca7-2003.