Ottoman

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedSeptember 12, 2025
Docket5:24-cv-13128
StatusUnknown

This text of Ottoman (Ottoman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ottoman, (E.D. Mich. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re Roger J. Ottoman, Case No. 24-13128

Debtor. Judith E. Levy United States District Judge ________________________________/ Mag. Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford Thomas Lee Walkley and Marcia Ottoman,

Appellants,

v.

Spectrum Mid-America LLC and Washtenaw County, Michigan,

Appellees.

________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING APPELLEES’ MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL [8]

Before the Court is Appellees Spectrum Mid-America LLC and Washtenaw County, Michigan’s motion to dismiss the appeal for mootness and failure to file a timely brief under Bankruptcy Rule 8018. (ECF No. 8.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion and dismisses the case. In the Sixth Circuit, “[t]he test for mootness is whether the relief sought would, if granted, make a difference to the legal interests of the

parties.” Ford v. Wilder, 469 F.3d 500, 504 (6th Cir. 2006); see also Berger v. Cuyahoga County Bar Ass’n, 983 F.2d 718, 724 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting

Carras v. Williams, 807 F.2d 1286, 1289 (6th Cir. 1986)) (“Mootness results when events occur during the pendency of a litigation which render the court unable to grant the requested relief.”). In the bankruptcy

proceeding context, when the underlying bankruptcy case is dismissed, “there no longer is any reason to resolve a dispute over automatic stay.” Dates v. HSBC Bank U.S.A., N.A., No. 1:13-cv-376, 2014 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 122671, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 3, 2014) (citing cases). Applying those same principles here, the Court finds that Appellant’s appeal has become moot. Appellants Thomas Walkley and

Marcia Ottoman filed this appeal on November 25, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) They appealed the bankruptcy court’s order abstaining from hearing the proceeding on permissive abstention grounds, remanding this case back

to Washtenaw County Circuit Court, and granting relief from the automatic stay. (See ECF No. 1, PageID.5.) Since then, the underlying action in Washtenaw County Circuit Court case (No. 24-000908) has been closed. The requested reversal of the bankruptcy court’s decision would no longer make a difference to the legal interests of the parties.

Moreover, the Court notes that Bankruptcy Rule 8018 requires an appellant to “serve and file a brief within 30 days after the docketing of

notice that the record has been transmitted or is available electronically.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(1). Rule 8018 further states, “[i]f an appellant fails to file a brief on time or within an extended time authorized under

(a)(3), the district court or BAP may—on its own after notice or on the appellee’s motion—dismiss the appeal.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(4); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(2) (“An appellant’s failure to take any step

other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal, but is ground only for the district court or BAP to act as it considers appropriate, including dismissing the appeal.”).

Here, on January 6, 2025, the Court ordered Appellants to file their brief by February 5, 2025. (ECF No. 4.) On February 3, 2025, pro se Appellant Walkley filed a motion to extend his time to file a brief by 60

days. (ECF No. 5, PageID.1076.) The Court generously granted the motion and extended the deadline for the brief to April 7, 2025. (ECF No. 7.) As of today’s date, which is nearly 11 months after the case was first filed, Appellants have not filed their brief. The Court therefore dismisses the appeal pursuant to Rule 8018(a)(4).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 8.) This matter shall be CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 12, 2025 s/Judith E. Levy Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on September 12, 2025. s/William Barkholz WILLIAM BARKHOLZ Case Manager

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ophelia Ford v. John S. Wilder
469 F.3d 500 (Sixth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ottoman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ottoman-mied-2025.