UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES—

GENERAL

Case No. 2:25-cv-05717-SSS Date August 13, 2025 Title In Re Alpha Beta Gamma Trust

Present: The Honorable SUNSHINE S. SYKES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Irene Vazquez Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

REGARDING FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Appellant Scott Eric Rosenstiel (“Rosenstiel” or “Appellant”) filed a notice of appeal on June 23, 2025. [Dkt. 1, “Notice of Appeal”]. Pursuant to the Notice Regarding Appeal from Bankruptcy Court issued on June 29, 2025, [Dkt. 3], and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy 8009, Appellant was required to file the following with the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court within fourteen days after filing the Notice of Appeal:  A designation of record;  A statement of issues on appeal; and  A notice regarding the ordering of transcripts. [Id.]. The Court Notice stated that the “failure of either party to comply with the time requirements as stated . . . may result in the dismissal of the appeal or the right to oppose the appeal.” [Id.]. Because Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on June 23, 2025, he was required to submit the documents on or before July 7, 2025. To date, Appellant has not filed a statement of issues or designation of record. [See Dkt. 6]. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) grants the Court authority to sua sponte dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Wolff v. California, 318 F.R.D. 627, 630 (C.D. Cal. 2016). A litigant must prosecute an action with “reasonable diligence” to avoid dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b). Anderson v. Air W., Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Appellant TO SHOW CAUSE in writing on or before September 5, 2025, why Appellant failed to comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009 and timely file the Required Documents and why the delay was not unreasonable. A hearing is set on this matter on September 12, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. via Zoom videoconference. Failure to adequately or timely respond to this order may result in the dismissal of this appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.