Epstein Secrets

its motion a designation of record and statement of issues. North Shore did not attach a brief. Subsequently, James P. Carroll, Chapter 7 Trustee ("Carroll"), filed a motion to dismiss this matter for lack of prosecution. North Shore did not file an opposition. On March 28, 2012, this Court entered an

ENTIAL — PURSUANT TO FED. R.cON(F IDENTIAL DB-SONY-0020028 EFTA_00 I 67772 EFTA01295869 Page 10 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93633, * 2 PrehjUdICO 10 Carroll The second Poulis factor considers prejudice to the appellee caused by the appellant's failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery.

decision of the bankruptcy court. Appellee trustee moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a). Of the six Poulis factors. five weighed in favor of dismissal and one weighed against dismissal. The court took into account the possibility that appellants counsel h

iveness of the Court's prior orders setting deadlines for North Shore to file its appellant's brief, as well as North Shore's failure to respond to Carroll's motions to dismiss gives the Court reason to doubt the effectiveness of such sanctions. North Shore has demonstrated little urgency in litigating

his appeal. [*16] Thus, the ineffectiveness of alternative sanctions weighs in favor of dismissal. 6 Morn of North Shore's Appeal [HN11] The sixth Poulis factor considers the meritoriousness of the appellant's claim. 747 F.2d at 868. "Ordinarily, '[a] claim, or defense, will be deemed meritorious when

a sanction for the appellant's "repeated failures to adhere to ordered briefing deadlines"). For the reasons discussed above, the Court will grant Carroll's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. An appropriate order follows. JULITO A. FRANCIS, Petitioner v. DEBRA L. WRIGHT- FRANCIS, Respondent

hat North Shore could successfully challenge the bankruptcy court's exercise of its broad discretion as to such matters is minimal. Thus, the final Poulis factor weighs in favor of dismissal. Cf. Buccolo, 308 Fed. Appx. 574, at n.1 ( [HN28] "[a] claim ... will be deemed meritorious when the allegations

ling orders in this matter. See Poulis, 747 F.2d at 869. Alternatively, the Court could ["15] consider the propriety of ordering North Shore to pay Carroll's attorney's fees associated with filing the instant motion. See id. However, North Shore has made it clear that its financial resources available t

mance. (May 26, 2010, Bankr. Summ. J. 7, ECF No. 1, Ex. 3). North Shore has a sufficient history of dilatoriness in this matter such that the third Poulis factor weighs in favor of dismissal. See, e.g., Buccolo, 308 Fed. Appx. 574, at *575 (affirming district court's dismissal of the bankruptcy appeal

its motion a designation of record and statement of issues. North Shore did not attach a brief. Subsequently, James P. Carroll, Chapter 7 Trustee ("Carroll"), filed a motion to dismiss this matter for lack of prosecution. North Shore did not file an opposition. On March 28, 2012, this Court entered an

rs, Inc., 189 Fed. Appx. 93, at *96 (3d Cir. 2006). Before such a dismissal occurs, however, a district court must consider six factors outlined in Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., For internal use only CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e) DB-SDNY-0053285 CONFIDENTIAL SDNY_GM_001