Michael Malone v. Hyung-Sik Yoo

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 10, 2023
• Docket: 22-35389
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL MALONE, AKA Jean Michale No. 22-35389 Guerin, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00646-RSM Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

HYUNG SIK HAROLD YOO; EUN-MI KIM YOO,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 10, 2023**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Michael Malone appeals the district court’s order dismissing his bankruptcy

appeal for failure to file a timely opening brief. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. See Pincay v.

* 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). Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 858 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc); Fitzsimmons v. Nolden (In

re Fitzsimmons), 920 F.2d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Malone’s late-filed

motion for an extension of time to file his opening brief, because Malone failed to

show that excusable neglect prevented a timely filing. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.

9006(b)(1); Pioneer Inv. Servs Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380,

395 (1993).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Malone’s appeal

because he failed to file a timely opening brief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(4);

In re Fitzsimmons, 920 F.2d at 1474. Malone failed to suggest any less drastic

sanction.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Malone’s motion

for reconsideration because Malone failed to establish any colorable basis for

reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (stating standard of review).

Appellees’ request for sanctions, made in their answering brief, is denied.

See, e.g., Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 796 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th

Cir. 2015).

AFFIRMED.