In Re: SK Foods, LP

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/12/12 ORDERING that the 4 Emergency Application is DENIED and the 4/18/12 hearing is VACATED; appellants shall, within 7 days of the date of this order, amend their Notice of Dismissal to reflect that they are appealing a final order of the Bankruptcy Court. If appellants fail to do so, the Clerk of the Court is directed to DISMISS this appeal, and all stays issued by this court are VACATED, withoutfurther order of this court. If appellants wish t o renew the request for stay, request due within 14 days and shall comply with the Local Rules of the District Court and the Bankruptcy Rules governing requests for stays on appeal; this court's temporary stay and any continuance thereof is VACA TED; the bankruptcy court's order imposing a $1,000 fine per day fine on appellants is temporarily STAYED until further order of this court. If appellants do not file a timely renewal of their request this temporary stay is VACATED without further order of this court. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

In re:

9

SK FOODS, L.P., a California
limited partnership, et al.,

10
Debtors.
11
12

BRADLEY D. SHARP, Chapter 11
Trustee,

CIV. NO. S-12-0775 LKK

13
Appellant,

O R D E R

14
15
16

v.
SSC FARMS 1, LLC, et al.,
Appellees.
/

17
18

On March 23, 2012, Cary Collins and his accounting firm,

19

Collins and Associates (collectively, “appellants” or “Collins

20

appellants”) filed this appeal from the adversary proceeding below,

21

Sharp v. SSC Farms, I (In re SK Foods, L.P.), Bankr. 9-2692.

22

March 28, 2012, appellants sought from this court an emergency stay

23

pending their appeal of what they say is a final ruling of the

24

Bankruptcy Court.

25

will be subject to a $1,000 per day fine imposed by a separate

26

contempt order issued by the Bankruptcy Court.

On

Appellants assert that absent the stay, they

There are numerous

procedural flaws in this appeal and emergency motion that render

1

this court unable to decipher what appellants want, or how the

2

relief they seem to want could afford them any relief.

3

1.

Appellants purport to appeal from a March 21, 2012

4

“Tentative ruling” of the Bankruptcy Court.

5

p.34.1

6

reconsider its February 1, 2012 order compelling their production

7

of documents.)

8

“final” judgment, order or decree of the Bankruptcy Court.

9

U.S.C. § 158(a).2

10

2.

(That

order,

in

turn,

denied

See Dkt. No. 1 at

appellant’s

motion

to

Appellants may appeal as of right only from a
28

Appellants seem to want “emergency” relief from the

11

Bankruptcy Court’s contempt order, yet they do not seek a stay of

12

that order.3

13

denying a motion for reconsideration.

14

how ruling on this motion will grant them any relief.

15

3.

Instead they seek a stay of a tentative ruling
Appellants do not explain

Appellants seem to believe that if they can overturn the

16

Bankruptcy Court’s February 1, 2012 order (compelling production

17

of documents), they will no longer be subject to that court’s

18

$1,000 per day fine.

However, the Bankruptcy Court’s contempt

19
20
21

1

“p.___” refers to the page number assigned by the CM/ECF
system.
2

22
23

Interlocutory appeals are permitted, but only with leave of
the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). Appellants have not
sought leave to file an interlocutory appeal.
3

24
25
26

Appellants have separately appealed the contempt order. See
Collins v. SSC Farms I, LLC (In re SK Foods, L.P.), Civ. No. 2:12cv-655 LKK. However, appellants have not moved to stay that order.
An appeal of the contempt order has also been filed by SSC Farming,
LLC. SSC Farms I, LLC v. Sharp (In re SK Foods, L.P.) , Civ. No.
2:12-cv-894 LKK.
2

1

order fines them for violating its November 16, 2011 stipulation

2

and order (in addition to violating the February 1st order).

3

Bankr. Dkt. No. 666 ¶¶ 1-2. Appellants do not explain how granting

4

them the relief they seek will purge this separate contempt (and

5

if it is not a separate contempt, appellants do not explain why

6

not).

7

4.

See

Appellants seek an emergency stay pending appeal, but

8

they do not disclose that their request for a stay has already been

9

denied by the Bankruptcy Court, nor explain why, in their view,

10

that decision was in error.

11

Accordingly, it is ordered that:

12

1.

13
14

Appellants’ emergency application (Dkt. No.4) is DENIED

and the April 18, 2012 hearing date is VACATED;
2.

Appellants shall, within seven (7) days of the date of

15

this order, amend their Notice of Dismissal to reflect that they

16

are appealing a final order of the Bankruptcy Court. If appellants

17

fail to do so, the Clerk of the Court is directed to DISMISS this

18

appeal, and all stays issued by this court are VACATED, without

19

further order of this court.

20

3.

If appellants wish to renew their request for a stay

21

pending appeal, they may do so by filing a noticed motion for such

22

relief no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this order

23

for the earliest available hearing date;

24

4.

Any renewed request shall comply with the local rules of

25

the district court, including Local Rule 230, and the Bankruptcy

26

Rules governing requests for stays on appeal;
3

1
2
3

5.

This

court’s

temporary

stay

(Dkt.

No.

8),

and

any

continuance thereof, is VACATED;
6.

The bankruptcy court’s order or orders imposing a $1,000

4

per day fine on appellants is temporarily STAYED until further

5

order of this court.

6

of their request, this temporary stay is VACATED without further

7

order of this court.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED:

If appellants do not file a timely renewal

April 12, 2012.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4