govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-0_25-cv-61397-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 25-61397-CIV-SINGHAL/STRAUSS 
 
 
ELIOT BERNSTEIN, 
 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CHARLES REVARD, 
 
Appellee. 
________________________/ 
ORDER 
 
THIS CAUSE  is before the Court on Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal (the 
“Motion”).  (DE [26]).  The Court has considered the Motion (DE [26] ), Appellant’s 
response (DE [27]), Magistrate Judge Strauss’ Report and Recommendation (DE [35]), 
and is otherwise fully advised.  For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion 
(DE [26]). 
On September 15, 2025, this Court extended Appellant’s deadline to file his initial 
brief to September 18, 2025.  (DE [22]).  Because Appellant was served via physical mail, 
he did not receive a copy of the order extending his deadline until September 19, 2025.  
(DE [23]).  That same day, Appellant filed his initial brief and moved for extension of time 
to cure the brief’s untimeliness.  (DE [23] at 1; [24]).  In his motion , Appellant asked the 
Court to both accept the initial brief as timely filed and “wit hout an Addendum
[1] under 
Rule 8018(e).”  (DE [23] at 1). 
 
1 Appellant’s subsequent filings and Rule 8018 reveal that he sought leave to file without an appendix, not 
an addendum.  See (DE [27] at ¶ 6); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018 (rules for serving and filing briefs and 
appendices). 
Case 0:25-cv-61397-AHS   Document 55   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2026   Page 1 of 3
2 
 
The Court granted the motion, although perhaps not with perfect clarity.  See (DE 
[25]).  Specifically, while the Court noted the reason for Appellant’s untimely filing, granted 
the motion, and stated that it “accept[ed] Appellant’s Brief,” it did not deny —or even 
address—Appellant’s motion to the extent it sought leave to file without an appendix.  (DE 
[25]).  Operating under the reasonable misapprehension that the order granted Appellant 
leave to proceed without an appendix, Appellant never filed one.  (DE [27] at ¶¶ 6, 12). 
Subsequently, Appellee filed the instant Motion.  (DE [26]).  He asks the Court to 
dismiss the appeal because, without an appendix or a copy of a critical hearing transcript, 
Appellee is unable to properly answer and this Court is unable to conduct an “intelligent 
review” of the appealed orders.  See generally (DE [26]).  Relying on the above-discussed 
order, Appellant urges the Court to deny the Motion or, alternatively, grant him leave to 
file an appendix.  (DE [27] at ¶¶ 6, 12, 23). 
But for Appellant’s reasonable misunderstanding, the Court would be inclined to 
grant the Motion.  Nevertheless, the Court will not dismiss Appellant’s appeal for failure 
to file an appendix when that failure was the result of Appellant’s good- faith reliance on 
this Court’s order.  Accordingly, it is hereby 
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 
1. The Motion (DE [26]) is DENIED; 
 
2. Appellant is GRANTED LEAVE to file an appendix pursuant to Federal Rule of 
Bankruptcy Procedure 8018 by June 29, 2026; 
 
3. Appellant’s failure to timely file a compliant appendix will result in dismissal of 
this appeal without further notice; 
 
4. Appellant is GRANTED LEAVE to file an amended initial brief containing 
appendix citations— but no other alterations— by June 29, 2026; 
 
5. If Appellant file s an amended initial brief, Appellee is ORDERED  to file  an 
amended answer brief containing appendix citations — but no other 
alterations—within 14 days. 
Case 0:25-cv-61397-AHS   Document 55   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2026   Page 2 of 3
3 
 
 
6. Magistrate Judge Strauss’s Report and Recommendation (DE [35]) is 
ADOPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART consistent with this Order. 
 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 8th day of 
June 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF  
 
Case 0:25-cv-61397-AHS   Document 55   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2026   Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight