Whitney v. Pacific Trading Ventures et al

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON APPELLANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FILED AUGUST 15, 2014; DIRECTING APPELLANT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AS MOOT. Appellant is ordered to show cause, in writin g and no later than September 5, 2014, why the instant appeal should not be dismissed as moot. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 19, 2014. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/19/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

In re

No. C-13-5766 MMC

9

PACIFIC THOMAS CORPORATION, dba
THOMAS CAPITAL, dba SAFE STORAGE,

Bankruptcy Adv. Proc. No. 13-04079 MEH

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11
12

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON
APPELLANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE
REQUEST FILED AUGUST 15, 2014;
DIRECTING APPELLANT TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED AS MOOT

Debtor.
___________________________________
KYLE EVERETT, Chapter 11 Trustee,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff
v.
RANDALL WHITNEY, et al.,
Defendants.

/

17
18

Before the Court is appellant Randall Whitney’s Administrative Request, filed August

19

15, 2014, to “Consolidate Appeals for Briefing and to Vacate Due Date for Filing Opening

20

Brief Pending Setting of Dates in Appeal No C-14-3465-MMC or Extend Briefing Date.”

21

Having read and considered the request, the Court rules as follows.

22

To the extent the administrative request seeks relief from the August 15, 2014

23

deadline to file the opening brief in the instant appeal, the request is hereby GRANTED, for

24

the reason that the instant appeal, as discussed below, appears to be moot.

25

To the extent the administrative request seeks additional relief, the Court hereby

26

DEFERS ruling thereon, and, for the reasons stated below, will direct appellant to show

27

cause why the instant appeal should not be dismissed as moot.

28

In the instant appeal, appellant seeks review of a preliminary injunction, filed

1

November 18, 2013, by which injunction appellant was prohibited from, inter alia, entering

2

the business premises of the debtor and from collecting rent owed to the debtor. (See

3

Record on Appeal, Doc. 7, Attachment 25.) Thereafter, the bankruptcy court conducted a

4

trial, and, on July 8, 2014, filed a Decision After Trial, in which it issued, inter alia, a

5

permanent injunction “consistent” with the terms of the preliminary injunction. (See In re

6

Pacific Thomas Corp., C-14-3465, Doc. 1, Ex. A.) Appellant filed a notice of appeal from

7

said Decision, which appeal is pending before this Court as Civil Case No. 14-3465 MMC.

8
9

Where, as here, a party appeals from an order granting a preliminary injunction, and
subsequently appeals from an order granting a permanent injunction, the appeal from the

10

order granting a preliminary injunction is subject to dismissal as moot and the appellate

11

court considers only the merits of the appeal from the permanent injunction. See, e.g.,

12

Smith v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 270 U.S. 587, 588-89 (1926) (dismissing as moot

13

appeal from order granting preliminary injunction where “interlocutory injunction had

14

become merged in the final decree”; considering merits of appeal from permanent

15

injunction); Planned Parenthood Arizona Inc. v. Betlach, 727 F.3d 960, 962-63 (9th Cir.

16

2013) (holding “district court’s entry of final judgment and a permanent injunction moot[ed]

17

[defendant’s] appeal of the preliminary injunction”; dismissing as moot appeal from order

18

granting preliminary injunction and considering merits of appeal from order granting

19

permanent injunction).

20

Accordingly, appellant is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no

21

later than September 5, 2014, why the instant appeal from the order granting a preliminary

22

injunction should not be dismissed as moot.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: August 19, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2