Epstein Secrets

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

ons order. Additionally, the ineffectiveness 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 demonstrat

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

ION Of the six Poulis factors, five weigh in favor of dismissal and one weighs against dismissal. The Court takes into account the possibility that North Shore's counsel bears [*29] some of the responsibility for its failure to follow the Court's scheduling order. Nonetheless, on balance, the Poulis factors

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

generally to the hustle and bustle of the bankruptcy proceedings. North Shore also pointed to the size of its legal team and financial resources. North Shore's explanations for its delays are unpersuasive. By failing to file an appellant's brief or timely move for an extension of time within which to do so,

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

Bankruptcy Court for the District of the Virgin Islands (the "Bankruptcy Division"), and the June 9, 2010, order of the Bankruptcy Division denying North Shore's motion for reconsideration. On July 9, 2010, the Court entered an Order stating that: Appellant shall, not later than 10 days after the date of thi