IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

     RAYMOND L. OLSEN and GLADYS     )
     M.	OLSEN,                       )
                  Appellants,        )
                                     )
             vs.                     )
                                     )
     GORDON ZERBETZ, et al.          )
                                     )
                  Appellees.         )
     ________________________________)
     Case No. A93-281 CV (JKS) (Bankruptcy Appeal)

Raymond and Gladys Olsen appeal a final decision of the Bankruptcy Court, dismissing their claims with prejudice. Bankruptcy Judge Ross granted a motion of the remaining parties to dismiss the Olsen's claims for failing to conduct discovery. See Bankruptcy Rule 7037, incorporating by reference Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (as amended, December 1, 1993). While Judge Ross termed his Order one granting summary judgment (See Bankruptcy Case No. 5-84-00009 at Docket No. 124) and entered judgment on that Order (see Bankruptcy Case No. 5-84-00009 at Docket No. 125), it is clear that Judge Ross first entered an establishment/preclusion order pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) and (B) precluding the Olsens from offering any evidence on their claims and then entered summary judgment against them for lack of evidence. Judge Ross did not separate from Rule 37(b) considerations, evaluate the Olsens claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and reject them on that basis.

The Olsens appeal dismissal of their claims. Judge Ross had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

Judge Ross found that the Olsens had wilfully refused to make discovery after being warned to do so. This finding, which is supported by the record, authorizes dismissal as a sanction. National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, reh'g denied, 429 U.S. 874 (1976). The Olsens do not really dispute the conclusion that they failed to follow an Order directing discovery. Nor do they contend that they lacked the ability to comply with the Order. They seek to relitigate issues earlier resolved against them in this Court. There are two reasons why they may not do so. First, the issues in question are the subject of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. This Court and the Bankruptcy Court lack jurisdiction to reconsider those issues. See, e.g., Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). Second, even if there were no appeal, the doctrine of the law of the case would preclude reconsideration of issues previously resolved, unless the criteria for relaxing that doctrine applied. See, e.g. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. United States, 755 F. Supp. 269, 272 (D. Alaska 1990), aff'd, 967 F.2d 307 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 964 (1993). There is nothing in this record that would permit reconsideration of the issues previously decided against the Olsens.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

The decision of the Bankruptcy Court dismissing all claims of the Olsens is AFFIRMED. The motions to extend the time for filing an appellee's brief and to supplement the record at Docket Nos. 11 and 13 are GRANTED.

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 9^th, day of January, 1994.

HONORABLE JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.
United States District Court Judge