There are currently pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Alaska numerous cases arising out of the bankruptcy of Raejean Bonham. Ms. Bonham operated through two corporations, World Plus, Inc., and Atlantic Pacific Funding Corporation. On April 30, 1998, Bankruptcy Court Judge Herbert Ross entered an order combining the assets and liabilities of Raejean Bonham, World Plus, Inc., and Atlantic Pacific Funding Corporation for purposes of the main bankruptcy case. The Trustee is pursuing a number of the investors in these corporations, seeking recovery of funds allegedly paid to them in violation of law.

A number of appeals have been filed from Judge Ross's order of consolidation. See Docket No. 7, Exh. A. In addition, the bankruptcy court denied the Trustee's motion to set aside the order dismissing the voluntary petition in Case No. F96-00013-HAR, to re-open the bankruptcy voluntarily filed by Raejean Bonham. The 5 ABR 444      Trustee has appealed that decision. All of these appeals are currently pending in this Court and most raise common issues of fact and law.

Pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for purposes of preparation of the record, consideration of the issues, and decision, the Trustee has filed a motion to consolidate all appeals from Judge Ross's order of consolidation. See Docket No. 7. The Court has considered the partial opposition to the motion to consolidate appeals which was filed before the bankruptcy appellate panel. Id., Exh. B. The partial opposition raises certain concerns related to the mechanics for resolving the appeals. The Court will address those concerns in reverse order.

First, appellants oppose any limitation on the amount of time for oral argument to which they would otherwise be entitled in their own appeal cases. Generally, this Court does not hear oral argument in administrative appeals. Consequently, this issue may be moot. Should it become desirable to hold oral argument, the Court will schedule sufficient time to permit the function and purpose of oral argument to be satisfied.

Second, appellants are concerned about limitations on the filing of their own appeal briefs. The Court expects that the appellants will meet, confer, and file a common brief addressing all common issues and setting all common facts established in the record. On application with this Court, a specific party may be permitted to file an additional brief addressing facts and legal contentions that are germane to the appeal, but are not adequately covered in the common brief.

Third, appellants are concerned about statements of points on 5 ABR 445      appeal. The Court assumes that the parties have already committed themselves to points on appeal and that this issue is probably moot given the passage of time. Therefore, for purposes of preparation of the record, consideration of the issues, and decision, the Trustee's motion to consolidate all appeals from Judge Ross's order of consolidation is granted.

An additional issue should also be addressed in this order. Certain appellants have filed a motion for a change of venue to Fairbanks, Alaska, based upon the residence of the debtor, the majority of defendants, and their attorneys. For several reasons, this request is problematic. First, Alaska constitutes one judicial district, and thus there is no such thing as a change of venue within the District of Alaska. See 28 U.S.C. § 81A. The Court assumes that appellants intended to request a change in the place of trial. See D. Ak. LR 3.2. However, even if this was appellants' intent, the request ignores the obvious fact that this Court will be functioning as an appellate court in all litigation related to the bankruptcy of Raejean Bonham. Moreover, whether the location of the appeal is Anchorage or Fairbanks, travel considerations are only a concern in the event that the Court grants oral argument in relation to a particular issue. As previously mentioned, this Court generally does not hear oral argument in administrative appeals. It appears to the Court that any motion for a change of venue is not well grounded in fact or law.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

The motion at Docket No. 7 to consolidate appeals is GRANTED. The appeals listed in the attachment to this Order are consolidated 5 ABR 446      pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(b).⁽¹⁾ The appellants identified in the attached list, or their counsel, shall confer with each other and file a single consolidated record on appeal in Alford v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0167 CV (JKS), on or before August 6, 1998. The Trustee shall file a single supplement to the consolidated designation of record in Alford on or before August 13, 1998.

Appellants are directed to confer with each other and file a consolidated opening brief in Alford on or before August 20, 1998, identifying all parties which join in that brief. On application with this Court, to the extent that any party desires to make arguments in addition to those set forth in the consolidated brief, that party may file an additional brief on matters not addressed in the consolidated brief. Those additional opening briefs shall also be filed be filed on or before August 20, 1998.

The Trustee shall file a consolidated opposition brief on or before September 8, 1998. Appellants may file their reply brief on or before September 18, 1998. Appellants are instructed to file a consolidated reply brief to the extent possible. On application with this Court, additional reply briefs may be filed as necessary to address matters pertinent to a single defendant or group of defendants not addressed in the consolidated reply brief. Additional reply briefs must also be filed on or before September 18, 1998. This order is without prejudice to this Court's finding that any of the bankruptcy judge's orders appealed from are not 5 ABR 447      final orders subject to appeal.

The Trustee's motion for additional time to supplement the record on appeal at Docket No. 5 is MOOT and therefore DENIED. Further, it appears that all other pending motions in the related appeals of the bankruptcy court's order granting substantive consolidation are MOOT and therefore DENIED. To the extent that appellants disagree with this assessment, they are directed to refile motions in Alford addressing any concerns ignored or not thoroughly addressed in this order.

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 7th day of July, 1998.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR.
United States District Judge

Alford, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0167 CV (JKS)
Brown, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0168 CV (JKS)
Mosbarger, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0169 CV (JKS)
Hansen, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0170 CV (JKS)
Alexander, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0171 CV (JKS)
Davey, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0172 CV (JKS)
Kinda, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0173 CV (JKS)
Franklin, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0174 CV (JKS)
Meroney, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0175 CV (JKS)
Anderson, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0176 CV (JKS)
Bemis, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0177 CV (JKS)
Clausen, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0178 CV (JKS)
Kenaston, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0179 CV (JKS)
Ackiss, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0180 CV (JKS)
Betschart, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0182 CV (JKS)

1. ¹ 5 ABR 446      The attached list strays from the Trustee's proposal at Exhibit A in two regards. First, it appears to the Court that Cox, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0183 CV (JWS), is entirely unrelated to this litigation. Second, the Court has entered an order dismissing the notice of appeal in Bemis, et al., v. Compton, USDC Appeal No. A98-0181 CV (JKS). Consequently, neither of those appeals are included in the Court's list.