Epstein Secrets

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

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

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

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

ovide any explanation for the failure, even after the court's inquiry into delinquency). Given that backdrop, the Court will now assess whether the Poulis factors favor or disfavor dismissal. I Extent of North Snores Personal Responsibility The first Poulis factor assesses the extent of the appellant

inal scheduling order in this matter. North Shore also pointed to the limited size of its legal team and financial resources. Because it seems that North Shore's counsel was at least somewhat responsible for North Shore's failure to comply with the Court's original scheduling order, the first Poulis factor do

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

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,

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

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