Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
In re Newton
United States District Court, D. New Jersey
April 16, 2019
In Re ANDREA NEWTON, Debtor.
Clinton Palmer, Defendant. Newton et al., Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
McNulty, United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on the applications of pro se
Debtor-Appellants Andrea Newton and her husband, Mark Newton,
for an order allowing the appellants to prosecute this appeal
without submitting critical items from the record
below-chiefly, the transcripts of the bankruptcy court
proceedings and rulings. (DE 38). The Newtons seek to appeal
from three orders: (1) a September 19, 2017 Order that
incorporated a settlement between Appellants and their
landlord, Clinton Palmer; (2) an October 6, 2017 Order that
granted relief from the automatic stay in bankruptcy to
Palmer so that he could proceed with eviction proceedings
against Appellants based on their failure to comply with the
September 19, 2017 Order; and (3) a November 7, 2017 Order
denying Mr. Newton's application to intervene in Ms.
Newton's bankruptcy proceeding.
the September 19, 2017 Settlement Order and the November 7,
2017 Order denying intervention were entered "for the
reasons set forth on the record." This Court has
provided the Newtons with numerous opportunities to perfect
their appeal and to submit the transcripts of the oral
decisions at issue in this appeal. The Newtons' continued
disregard of this Court's orders violates the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy and impedes this Court's review.
provide a brief summary of the Newtons' repeated
■ November-December 2017: the Newtons file their
notices of appeal.
■ April 4, 2018: I enter an order to show cause why the
appeals should not be dismissed based on the Newtons'
failure to file the record in compliance with Fed. R. Bankr.
R. 8003 and 8009. (DE 8). The appellants do not respond
adequately, but cite medical problems. (DE 9).
■ April 26, 2018: I dismiss the appeals without
prejudice to reinstatement if the record is properly filed
within 30 days. (DE 10).
■ On May 25, 2018, the Newtons write to the Court
claiming that they were not "served" with the April
26, 2018 order and did not learn about it until May 3, or
possibly May 25, 2018, and should be given more time to
comply. (DE 11).
■ On May 29, 2018, I enter an order granting a further
extension until June 19, 2018. (DE 12).
■ July 22, 2018: A purported designation of the record
on appeal is filed. (DE 13). It does not include the
transcripts of September 19, 2017 or November 7, 2017
■ July 20, 2018: The Newtons write to the Court,
claiming to have overlooked various court-imposed obligations
and orders, citing medical problems and religious
observances, and requesting reinstatement of their appeals.
■ March 5, 2019: Despite deficiencies, the Court
reinstates the Newtons' appeals. A briefing schedule is
entered requiring the Newtons to file their merits briefing
by April 4, 2019. (DE 21).
■ March 8, 2019: In state-court eviction proceedings,
the Newtons represent to the State judge that that my order
of March 5, 2019 impliedly stayed the eviction because it was
entered after they had moved for reinstatement of their
appeal "and other relief." The Superior Court
adjourns the proceedings, seeking clarification as to whether
a stay had been granted. (DE 26 ¶¶ 26, 27).
■ March 19, 2019: I enter an opinion and order stating
in no uncertain terms that no stay was in place and denying a
pending motion for a stay. (DE 28, 29). I particularly admonish
the Newtons that, when this Court eventually considers the
merits of their appeal, I will consider whether they have
filed (1) the transcript of the settlement that was put on
the record (hearing August 30, 2017, order issued Sept. 19,
2017); and (2) the transcript for the November 7, 2017
hearing denying Mr. Newton's application to intervene in
Ms. Newton's bankruptcy proceeding. (DE ...
Buy This Entire Record For