Rehabilitated Inner City Housing, LLC et al v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City et al

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
In re
MICHAEL A. LESICK,
Debtor.
____________________________
REHABILITATED INNER CITY
HOUSING, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
BALTIMORE CITY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 03-00038
(Chapter 7)
Adversary Proceeding No.
05-10075
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN
WEST’S BANKRUPTCY REPORTER
DECISION RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
No adequate response has been filed regarding this court’s
order issued on September 12, 2007, directing the parties to show
cause why this adversary proceeding ought not be dismissed, and a
judgment of dismissal will follow.
On June 15, 2006, the court entered a scheduling order
setting January 30, 2007, as the deadline for pretrial
statements, and February 20, 2007, as the pretrial conference
The decision below is signed as a decision of
the court.
Signed: November 09, 2007.
_____________________________
S. Martin Teel, Jr.
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 05-10075 Doc 125 Filed 11/09/07 Entered 11/09/07 15:58:50 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 4

2
date. 	On July 19, 2006, the court entered an order (Docket Entry
No. 107) that dismissed most of the plaintiff's claims in this
proceeding. 	(An appeal was taken, but the order was an
interlocutory order (appealable only in the discretion of the
district court), and not a final appealable order under Rule 54.)
The plaintiff apparently did not view the remaining claims to be
worth pursuing as the plaintiff filed no pretrial statement by
the due date of January 30, 2007. 	The pretrial conference of
February 20, 2007 (set by the court's scheduling order of June
15, 2006) was continued on the record to September 5, 2007
(Docket Entry No. 107), but no one appeared on September 5, 2007.
That resulted in the court's order to show cause why the
proceeding ought not be dismissed as to the remaining claims.
More than a month has elapsed since that order was issued, giving
the plaintiff more than adequate time to show cause. 	No response
has been filed through an attorney who is a member of the bar of
this court. 	Instead, an officer of the plaintiff filed a motion
on October 2, 2007, requesting more time to respond to the order
to show cause, and stating that the plaintiff needs time to
secure replacement counsel.
That motion properly can be stricken as a corporation may
only appear through counsel. 	Moreover, the officer acknowledges
that plaintiff made only one inquiry of counsel regarding this
case for over a year, an inquiry to which no response was
Case 05-10075 Doc 125 Filed 11/09/07 Entered 11/09/07 15:58:50 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 4

3
received. 	That should have set off alarm bells in the officer’s
mind, warning him that something was amiss. 	Pretrial statements
were to be filed by January 30, 2007, but were not, and yet the
plaintiff had not exercised sufficient diligence to even
ascertain that this procedural default existed in the case and
had continued to exist for over seven months. 	Moreover, the
officer acknowledges that on September 12, 2007, the plaintiff
was advised by “local counsel” to obtain replacement counsel.
Presumably the court’s order to show cause was mentioned at that
time, as the officer does not state any other way in which he
learned of the order to show cause. 	Yet, as of this date, more
than a month after the issuance of the order to show cause, and
after the advice to obtain new counsel, no new counsel has
entered an appearance to speak on the plaintiff’s behalf. 	Nor
does local counsel’s advice to obtain new counsel constitute an
excuse for lack of a proper response to the order to show cause.
Plaintiff’s local counsel has an obligation to represent the
plaintiff’s interest in these proceedings, and until his
appearance is withdrawn, that obligation persists.
In the circumstances, the plaintiff has not showed good
cause for allowing this adversary proceeding to remain pending as
to the claims not already dismissed. 	Accordingly, I will issue a
final judgment, dismissing the claims not yet dismissed by prior
order as well as those already dismissed, dismissing the
Case 05-10075 Doc 125 Filed 11/09/07 Entered 11/09/07 15:58:50 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 4

4	O:/Judge Temp Docs/Rehabilitated vs Mayer of Baltimore (In re Lesick) Decision re OTSC Response Being Inadequate.wpd
adversary proceeding in its entirety, and thereby concluding this
adversary proceeding. 	The plaintiff may then take an appeal from
the final judgment.
[Signed and dated above.]
Copies to: All counsel of record.
Case 05-10075 Doc 125 Filed 11/09/07 Entered 11/09/07 15:58:50 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 4