In Re: Heathtrio, Inc.
ORDER Denying Interlocutory Appeal. The Motion for Leave to appeal is denied, there is no basis for granting a stay and the Hasans' accompanying Verified Motion for Stay (Doc. 11) is DENIED as MOOT. The appeal is DISMISSED and the matter is remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings by Judge John L. Kane on 04/29/14.(jhawk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 13-cv-3473-AP
In re HEALTHTRIO, INC.,
MALIK M. HASAN, M.D. and SEEME G. HASAN,
CENTENNIAL RIVER CORP.,
AXIOM SYSTEMS, INC.,
JOHNSON-LAIRD, INC., and
DAVID E. LEWIS, Chapter 7 Trustee,
ORDER DENYING INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL
Appellants Malik M. Hasan, M.D., and his with, Seeme G. Hasan, seek leave to
appeal an order of the Bankruptcy Court denying their attempt to unwind an involuntary
Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition filed against Healthrio, Inc. As is often the case in bankruptcy
matters coming to the district court on appeal, the individual relationships and motivations
underlying a request for relief are convoluted. The Hasans are creditors of the bankruptcy
estate in that they hold a $21 million judgment against the Debtor, Healthtrio, Inc. They
were represented in their claim against Healthtrio by the law firm of Keevican Weiss
Bauerle & Hirsch LLC (“KWBH”). In the bankruptcy proceedings below, KWBH and the
Hasans are at odds: The Hasans want to be paid on their judgment and KWBH wants to
recover for its legal work in obtaining that judgment. Both have claims against the estate.
After the Involuntary Petition was executed and relief on the Petition granted by
Judge Tallman, the Hasans raised the specter that one of the attorneys at KWBH executed
the Chapter 7 Petition on behalf of one of the Petitioners when he lacked actual authority to
do so. Judge Tallman held a hearing on the allegations in October 2013, and in his
December 11 Order, actually found that the allegations were true. He declined to unwind
the Involuntary Petition or his Order of Relief, however, noting the tangled web of
relationships and the Hasans’ conflict of interest, and concluding it was for the Trustee, not
the Hasans, to act on the Debtor’s behalf with regard to the “fraud.”
I agree, and DENY the Hasans’ Motion for Leave to Appeal under 28 U.S.C. §
158(a)(3). The Hasans are unlikely to prevail on the merits of their appeal, even if they
were presumed to have standing to pursue it. Judge Tallman’s decision to leave his Order of
Relief intact notwithstanding KWBH’s actions was discretionary under the circumstances
and no district court is likely to find that he abused his discretion in doing so. Because the
Motion for Leave to appeal is denied, there is no basis for granting a stay and the Hasans’
accompanying Verified Motion for Stay (Doc. 11) is DENIED as MOOT. The appeal is
DISMISSED and the matter is remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings.
Dated April 29, 2014.
s/John L. Kane
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?