Szanto v. Szanto et al
| Evye Szanto, Victor Szanto, Mariette Szanto, Nicole Szanto, Barbara Szanto Alexander, Kimberley Szanto, Anthony Szanto and Austin Bell |
| Stephen P. Arnot |
| Peter Szanto |
| 3:2019cv02043 |
| December 11, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Michael H Simon |
| Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158 |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 0158 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER - The parties are directed to confer on whether this case should be consolidated under the Lead Case No. 18-cv-0939-SI. If so, a joint motion for consolidation should be filed. If no consolidation is requested, the parties are directed to confer on a case schedule and if they reach agreement, file a joint proposed case schedule with the Court by February 7, 2020. If the parties do not agree on a case schedule, they may file separate proposed schedules for the Court's consideration. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER - Appellant Peter Szanto moves under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to correct the date of the Notice of Appeal (ECF #1 ), changing it from December 11, 2019 to December 9, 2019. Mr. Szanto originally paid his filing fee and filed his Notice of Appeal in the Bankruptcy Court on December 9, 2019 with an "/s/ signed electronically" signature line. The Bankruptcy Court Clerk notified him that such a signature was unacceptable and on December 11, 2019, Mr. Szanto filed an Amended Notice of Appeal with his name in the signature line. Mr. Szanto's Rule 60 motion relates to filings in the Bankruptcy Court and that is where he should filed his motion. He has, however, already filed both a Rule 60 motion and a motion to extend the time to file a Notice of Appeal in the Bankruptcy Court, and those motions were denied. The Bankruptcy Court found that the Mr. Szanto's first filing of December 9, 2019, was incomplete and that only his December 11, 2019 filing was complete. The Bankruptcy Court also found that Mr. Szanto's motion was moot because the deadline for him to file his Notice of Appeal was December 11, 2019, and thus his Amended Notice was timely. There is, therefore, no need for the date to be "corrected." Based on the foregoing, Appellant's motion to correct clerical error (ECF #4 ) is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
|
Filing 7
Notification of CM/ECF Account for Peter Szanto (Pro Se Filer admission). Your login is: pszanto. Go to #the CM/ECF login page to reset your password if needed. (sss)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER - Appellant's Application for CM/ECF Registration as a Self-Represented Party (ECF #5 ) is GRANTED. Signed on 12/31/2019 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
|
|
Filing 4
Appellant/Debtor's Notice of Motion and Motion to Correct Clerical Error. Filed by Peter Szanto. (mja)
|
|
Filing 5
Application for CM/ECF Registration as a Self-Represented Party. Filed by Peter Szanto. (sss)
|
|
Filing 3
Notice of Case Assignment: This case is assigned to Judge Michael H. Simon. (eo) Copy mailed to appellant on 12/17/19.
|
|
Filing 2
Notice of Referral of Appeal to USDC. (eo)
|
|
Filing 1
Notice of Appeal and Optional Statement of Election to District Court. Bankruptcy Court Case Number: 16-ap-3114. The Filling Fee was paid at the Bankruptcy Court. Filed by Peter Szanto. (Attachments: #1 Amended Notice of Appeal) (eo)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
