Gjeloshi et al v. TMF 12, LLC

Filing 9

ORDER granting 7 Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal. This Appeal is DISMISSED. All pending motions are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell on 10/26/2016. (JJH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ISMET GJELOSHI and FATIMA
GJELOSHI,
Appellants,
v.

Case No: 8:16-cv-2176-T-36

TMF 12, LLC,
Appellee.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Doc. 7),
filed on September 8, 2016. Appellants have not responded to the motion and the time to do so
has expired. In the motion, Appellee states that Appellants have failed to take any action in the
case following the Notice of Appeal, including failing to abide by the Court’s deadlines and those
set forth in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Rule 8001, et seq. all of which justifies
dismissal of the appeal. The Court, having considered the motion and being fully advised in the
premises, will now grant the motion.
DISCUSSION
On July 11, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court in the underlying bankruptcy case, Case No. 8:16bk-05375 (the “Bankruptcy Case”), entered its Order Granting TMF 12, LLC’s Emergency Motion
for Annulment of the Automatic Stay (Bankruptcy Case, Doc. No. 35) (the “Annulment Order”).
The Annulment Order (i) found that the automatic stay provided for by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) was
annulled as of the date and time the Appellants filed their bankruptcy petition, and (ii) found that,
by virtue of the annulment, the foreclosure sale which took place immediately following the
Appellants’ bankruptcy filing was not a violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The state court foreclosure

action is styled Robert J. Wright, et al v. Ismet Gjeloshi, et al. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ismet
Gjeloshi, et al., Case No. 09-18235-CI-8, and is pending in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial
Circuit in and for Pinellas County.
On July 22, 2016, Appellants filed in the Bankruptcy Court their Notice of Appeal,
Bankruptcy Case, Doc. 56, which was followed by an Amended Notice of Appeal, Bankruptcy
Case, Doc. 57. On July 29, 2016, the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court filed the Notice of Transmittal
of Record to District Court, Bankruptcy Case Doc. 65, which transmitted the Notice of Appeal to
this Court. Doc. 1. On August 6, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered its Order granting TMF 12’s
Motion to Dismiss Bankruptcy Case (Bankruptcy Case Doc. 74) (the “Dismissal Order”) which
dismissed Appellant’s bankruptcy case. The Appellants did not file a notice of appeal as to the
dismissal order. The Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court transmitted a copy of the Dismissal Order to
this Court, Doc. 6, and the Bankruptcy Court officially closed the case on September 8, 2016. On
September 15, 2016, the Appellees filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Appeal. Bankruptcy
Doc. 76, Doc. 8
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8003(a)(2) provides: “[a]n appellant’s failure to
take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the
appeal, but is ground only for the district court or BAP to act as it considers appropriate, including
dismissing the appeal.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003(a)(2). “[D]ismissal typically occurs in cases
showing consistently dilatory conduct or the complete failure to take any steps other than the mere
filing of a notice of appeal.” Lawrence v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 522 Fed. Appx 836, 839 (11th
Cir. 2013) (quoting Brake v. Tavormina (In re Beverly Manufacturing Corp., 778 F.2d 666, 667
(11th Cir. 1985)). Appellants have had ample opportunity to reply to this Motion and have not

2

done so. They also have not filed an initial brief, a motion for extension of time, or any other
pleading in furtherance of this appeal.
Further, given the dismissal of the bankruptcy case, this appeal is now moot. See In re
Roberts, 291 F. App’x 296, 298 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Fed. Energy
Regulatory Comm’n, 140 F.3d 1392, 1401 (11th Cir. 1998)) (“A case becomes moot ‘when the
issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome.’”). It appears Appellants may have inadvertently omitted filing their Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal of Appeal in this action. Therefore, this appeal is due to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.

2.

This Appeal is DISMISSED.

3.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case

DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on October 26, 2016.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record and Unrepresented Parties, if any

3