In re: MARY A. FLOWERS v. Schorr Law, a professional corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: MARY A. FLOWERS,
Debtor,
______________________________
MARY A. FLOWERS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
SCHORR LAW, a professional corporation,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-55857
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-08014-R
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Mary A. Flowers appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for failure to prosecute her bankruptcy appeal. We have jurisdiction
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-55857
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Greco
v. Stubenberg, 859 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Flowers’
bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute because the district court warned
Flowers repeatedly that failure to comply with filing deadlines would result in
dismissal, granted Flowers an extension of time to submit the opening brief, and
provided an opportunity for Flowers to respond to an order to show cause prior to
dismissal. See id. (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by
dismissing an appeal from the bankruptcy court where the appellant failed to
comply with court deadlines after a warning that failure to comply would result in
dismissal); see also Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(4) (permitting district court to
dismiss a bankruptcy appeal on its own motion, after notice, if an appellant fails to
file a timely brief); Moneymaker v. CoBen (In re Eisen), 31 F.3d 1447, 1451-56
(9th Cir. 1994) (discussing factors for district court to weigh in determining
whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute; noting that “[a] reviewing court will
give deference to the district court to decide what is unreasonable because it is in
the best position to determine what period of delay can be endured before its
docket becomes unmanageable” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Schorr Law’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 7) is granted.
Flowers’ request for reassignment, set forth in her opening brief, is denied as

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-55857
moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --