In re: David Bartenwerfer, et al v. Kieran Buckley
Debtor: In re: DAVID WILLIAM BARTENWERFER and KATE MARIE BARTENWERFER
Appellant: DAVID WILLIAM BARTENWERFER
Appellee: KIERAN BUCKLEY
Case Number: 18-60001
Filed: January 10, 2018
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 28, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
March 28, 2018 Filing 9 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: TSP) Granting Motion (ECF Filing) motion to dismiss the case voluntarily pursuant to rule 42b filed by Appellants David William Bartenwerfer and Kate Marie Bartenwerfer, This order shall constitute the mandate. [10816913] (TSP) [Entered: 03/28/2018 05:07 PM]
March 27, 2018 Filing 8 Filed (ECF) Appellants David William Bartenwerfer and Kate Marie Bartenwerfer Motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b). Date of service: 03/27/2018. [10814574] [18-60001] (Macdonald, Iain) [Entered: 03/27/2018 02:50 PM]
March 6, 2018 Filing 7 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: SZ): Appellants appeal the December 22, 2017 final judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) which affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part the judgment of the bankruptcy court. A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over these appeals because this court only has jurisdiction over final decisions of the BAP under 28 U.S.C. 158(d). See Gugliuzza v. Federal Trade Commission (In re Gugliuzza), 852 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 2017) (appellate jurisdiction under 158(d)(1) [is limited] to decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees that are final); Vylene Enters., Inc. v. Naugles, Inc. (In re Vylene Enters., Inc.), 968 F.2d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 1992) (if the BAP remands for factual determinations on a central issue, its order is not final and we lack jurisdiction to review the order); U.S. Bank v. Vill. at Lakeridge, LLC (In re The Vill. at Lakeridge, LLC), 814 F.3d 993, 998 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. granted in part on other grounds by 137 S. Ct. 1372 (2017) (same). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall move for voluntary dismissal of their respective appeal or show cause why their respective appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellants elect to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellants do not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss their respective appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [10787801] [18-60001, 18-60007] (AF) [Entered: 03/06/2018 12:13 PM]
March 6, 2018 Filing 6 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator by email should circumstances develop that warrant further settlement discussions. [10787003] (VS) [Entered: 03/06/2018 08:04 AM]
January 22, 2018 Filing 5 MEDIATION CONFERENCE RESCHEDULED - Assessment Conference, 02/20/2018, 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time. (originally scheduled on 02/19/2018 ). [10733144] (VS) [Entered: 01/22/2018 01:46 PM]
January 22, 2018 Filing 4 MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - Assessment Conference, 02/19/2018, 11:00 a.m. PACIFIC Time. The briefing schedule previously set by the court remains in effect. See order for instructions and details. [10732261] (VS) [Entered: 01/22/2018 09:36 AM]
January 17, 2018 Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Appellants David William Bartenwerfer and Kate Marie Bartenwerfer Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 01/17/2018. [10727922] [18-60001] (Macdonald, Iain) [Entered: 01/17/2018 04:04 PM]
January 17, 2018 Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Appellee Kieran Buckley Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 01/17/2018. [10727610] [18-60001] (Brayer, Janet) [Entered: 01/17/2018 02:23 PM]
January 10, 2018 Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. Setting schedule as follows: Mediation Questionnaire due on 01/17/2018. Appellants David William Bartenwerfer and Kate Marie Bartenwerfer opening brief due 04/16/2018. Appellee Kieran Buckley answering brief due 05/16/2018 Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [10720285] (BG) [Entered: 01/10/2018 02:30 PM]

Access additional case information on PACER

Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: In re: David Bartenwerfer, et al v. Kieran Buckley
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Debtor: In re: DAVID WILLIAM BARTENWERFER
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Debtor: KATE MARIE BARTENWERFER
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Appellant: DAVID WILLIAM BARTENWERFER
Represented By: Reno F.R. Fernandez III
Represented By: Iain A. Macdonald
Represented By: Matthew J. Olson Esquire
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Appellee: KIERAN BUCKLEY
Represented By: Janet Marie Brayer
Represented By: Stephen Davis Finestone
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?