In Re: Craig Clinton Rominger and Heidi Kay Rominger

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 In Re: CRAIG CLINTON ROMINGER and CASE NO. 2:25-cv-02143-LK 11 HEIDI KAY ROMINGER ORDER GRANTING MOTION 12 FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on Appellee Jonathan Roberts’ Motion for Order to 15 Show Cause Why Appeal Should Not be Dismissed for Lack of Prosecution. Dkt. No. 14. Mr. 16 Roberts avers that Appellants Craig and Heidi Rominger have not perfected their bankruptcy 17 appeal, and he seeks an order requiring them to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed 18 for failure to prosecute. Id. at 3–4. 19 On October 23, 2025, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court entered a judgment and order denying 20 the Romingers’ discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(1). See Dkt. No. 5 at 2; see also Dkt. No. 1-1 21 at 31–32. The Romingers have appealed that judgment to this Court. 22 On February 5, 2026, the Bankruptcy Court filed a Notice of Deficient Appeal, stating that 23 that court was unable to certify that the record is complete for purposes of this appeal because the 24 Romingers have not filed the transcript or paid the transcription fees to the transcriber. Dkt. No. 1 13 at 1. As of February 17, 2026, when Mr. Roberts filed this motion, the Romingers had not paid 2 for the transcript, Dkt. No. 16 at 1–2, and there is no indication that they have done so since. Nor 3 have the Romingers responded to this motion, which the Court construes as an admission that the 4 motion has merit. LCR 7(b)(2). 5 “At the time of ordering” the transcript, “a party must make satisfactory arrangements with 6 the reporter to pay for the transcript.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(b)(4). The Romingers have not 7 complied with this rule. See Dkt. No. 13 at 1; see generally Dkt. No. 14. As a result, the required 8 transcript has not been filed. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8009(b)(1) (requiring 9 appellants to file a copy of the transcript with the bankruptcy clerk or a certificate stating that they 10 are not ordering a transcript). In addition, “[a]n appellant’s failure to take any step other than timely 11 filing a notice of appeal does not affect the appeal’s validity, but is ground . . . for the district court 12 . . . to act as it considers appropriate, including dismissing the appeal.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 13 8003(a)(2); see also In re Hernandez, No. 25-cv-2164-RSH-MMP, 2025 WL 3014551, at *2 (S.D. 14 Cal. Oct. 28, 2025) (dismissing bankruptcy appeal for failure to perfect the appeal or show cause 15 for that failure). 16 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for an order to show cause, Dkt. No. 14, and 17 ORDERS the Romingers to show cause within 14 days of this Order why the Court should not 18 dismiss their appeal for failure to prosecute. The Romingers may show adequate cause by taking 19 all necessary steps to perfect this appeal, see Dkt. No. 13 at 1, and filing proof with this Court that 20 they have done so. 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 1 Failure to timely show adequate cause shall result in the dismissal without prejudice of this 2 appeal for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3 8003(a)(2); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–30 (1962); Ferdik 4 v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). 5 Dated this 18th day of March, 2026. 6 A 7 Lauren King United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24