Prakash Narayan, et al v. NBS Default Services, LLC, et al
| PRAKASH NARAYAN, pro se |
| KUSUM LATA N |
| NBS DEFAULT SERVICES, LLC, DBA National Bankruptcy, BONAIL AND ASSOCIATES, PC, AUSTIN NAGAR, NBS LAW FIRM and SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC |
| 23-15982 |
| July 11, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Foreclosure |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 30, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Prakash Narayan motion for reconsideration of dispositive Judge Order of 08/30/2023. Date of service: 08/30/2023. [12784188] [23-15982] (Narayan, Prakash) [Entered: 08/30/2023 08:13 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed order (MARY M. SCHROEDER, MARSHA S. BERZON and JOHN B. OWENS) A review of the record and appellants response to this courts July 13, 2023 order to show cause demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the July 7, 2023 notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after the district court's judgment entered on June 5, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); United States v. Sadler , 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). Appellant was not entitled to additional days to file a timely notice of appeal because the time for filing a notice of appeal is calculated from the date of entry of the judgment on the district court docket, not the date of receipt. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [12777073] (JMR) [Entered: 08/18/2023 02:36 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Prakash Narayan response to order to show cause dated 07/13/2023. Date of service: 08/02/2023. [12767120] [23-15982]--[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect correct ECF filing type. 08/03/2023 by SLM] (Narayan, Prakash) [Entered: 08/03/2023 12:42 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MCD): The district courts judgment was entered on the docket on June 5, 2023. Appellants notice of appeal was filed in the district court on July 7, 2023. Accordingly, the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after entry of the district courts judgment. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 4(c); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). The record does not reflect that appellant has filed a motion in the district court to extend or reopen the time for appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6), and 26(b)(1). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant must move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal, or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [12754492] (CKP) [Entered: 07/13/2023 10:42 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANTS. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Kusum Lata N and Prakash Narayan, pro se opening brief due 09/05/2023. Appellees Bonail and Associates, PC, NBS Default Services, LLC, NBS Law Firm, Austin Nagar and Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC answering brief due 10/05/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12752826] (JBS) [Entered: 07/11/2023 11:53 AM] |
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.
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.
