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.

e 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 ... if established [], would support recovery b

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

e 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 ... if established [], would support recovery b

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

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 for failure mks prosecute where appellant "did not comp