MICHAEL MALONE, AKA Jean Michale Guerin v. Hyung Sik Harold Yoo; Eun-Mi Kim Yoo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL MALONE, AKA Jean Michale
Guerin,
Appellant,
v.
HYUNG SIK HAROLD YOO; EUN-MI
KIM YOO,
Appellees.
No. 22-35389
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00646-RSM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2023**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Michael Malone appeals the district court’s order dismissing his bankruptcy
appeal for failure to file a timely opening brief. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. See Pincay v.
* 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
OCT 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 858 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc); Fitzsimmons v. Nolden (In
re Fitzsimmons), 920 F.2d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Malone’s late-filed
motion for an extension of time to file his opening brief, because Malone failed to
show that excusable neglect prevented a timely filing. See Fed. R. Bankr. P.
9006(b)(1); Pioneer Inv. Servs Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380,
395 (1993).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Malone’s appeal
because he failed to file a timely opening brief. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(4);
In re Fitzsimmons, 920 F.2d at 1474. Malone failed to suggest any less drastic
sanction.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Malone’s motion
for reconsideration because Malone failed to establish any colorable basis for
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (stating standard of review).
Appellees’ request for sanctions, made in their answering brief, is denied.
See, e.g., Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 796 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th
Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --