Robinson v. Lofty Asset Management, Inc.
ORDER denying #2 Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal; directing the Clerk to close the file. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 10/11/2019. (SRW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
In re Lynn Robinson,
doing business as
Bankruptcy Case No. 3:19-bk-1041-JAF
Case No. 3:19-cv-1155-J-32
LOFTY ASSET MANAGEMENT,
INC., doing business as Arbor Place
Pro se appellant Lynn Robinson has filed this motion seeking leave to file
an interlocutory appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s September 16, 2019 Order
granting relief from the automatic stay. See Doc. 2. That Order permits her
creditor, Mac Arbor, LLC, to lawfully retake possession of property located at
5800 Barnes Road South #124, Jacksonville, Florida, 32216, effective October
12, 2019. See Doc. 1-2.
See Doc. 3.
Mac Arbor, LLC has filed a response in opposition.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), the district court has discretionary
appellate jurisdiction over non-final orders of the bankruptcy court. A party
seeking this relief must comply with Rule 8004 of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure, which requires that a motion seeking leave to file an
interlocutory appeal include “(A) the facts necessary to understand the question
presented; (B) the question itself; (C) the relief sought; (D) the reasons why
leave to appeal should be granted; and (E) a copy of the interlocutory order or
decree and any related opinion or memorandum.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8004(b)(1).
Even assuming Robinson has satisfied these preliminary requirements,
she must further demonstrate that her appeal would satisfy the standards of
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See, e.g., Laurent v. Herkert, 196 F. App’x 771, 772 (11th
Cir. 2006); Music Royalty Consult., Inc. v. Scott Storch Music, LLC, No. 18-cv60890-BLOOM, 2018 WL 6812943, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2018); In re Brown,
No. 3:18-cv-415-J-34, 2018 WL 3496790, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2018). Thus,
she must establish “that (1) the order presents a controlling question of law; (2)
over which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion among courts;
and (3) the immediate resolution of the issue would materially advance the
ultimate determination of the litigation.” Laurent, 196 F. App’x at 772 (citing
2 U.S.C. § 1292(b)); Music Royalty, 2018 WL 6812943, at *4; Brown, 2018 WL
3496790, at *2. In the Eleventh Circuit, interlocutory appeals are disfavored.
See Prado-Steiman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1276 (11th Cir. 2000).
Thus, “[l]eave must be denied if the party seeking leave to appeal fails to
establish any one of the three elements.” Figueroa v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
382 B.R. 814, 824 (S.D. Fla. 2007).
Even according her filings the leniency to which pro se litigants are
entitled, (see, e.g., Campbell v. Air Jamaica, 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir.
2014)), Robinson has failed to meet (or even mention) any of those
Robinson claims the bankruptcy court violated her Fifth
Amendment Due Process rights in ruling against her, yet the bankruptcy docket
reveals the court considered her filings and conducted a hearing; two of her
points relate to a bankruptcy order from July denying her motion to sanction
appellee’s counsel, which order is not part of this interlocutory appeal (and any
effort to include it would be untimely, see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8004(a)(1),
incorporating Rule 8002, which sets a 14 day period for filing a notice of appeal);
she states without reference to any order of the bankruptcy court that she has
been harmed by appellee’s counsel and has incurred medical bills and
temporary housing costs; and finally claims that the bankruptcy court’s order
The Court has considered not only the bare motion, but also the
Statement of Issues attached to her Designation of Record on Appeal. See Doc.
167 filed in the bankruptcy docket. (That filing references the bankruptcy
court’s September 11, 2019 order; however, while the bankruptcy court
conducted a hearing on September 11, 2019, it did not issue its order until
September 16, 2019. The Court presumes it is this order from which appellant
seeks leave to take an interlocutory appeal).
granting relief from stay constitutes a terrorist act upon a woman of color who
suffers from “post traumatic slave disorder.”
See Doc. 167 filed in the
bankruptcy docket. The Court can glean no issues here which would warrant
granting an interlocutory appeal under the standard stated above.
Accordingly, it is hereby
Appellant Lynn Robinson’s Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal
(Doc. 2) is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 11th day of
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN
United States District Judge
Honorable Jerry A. Funk
United States Bankruptcy Judge
pro se appellant
counsel of record
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?