In Re: Amador et al

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS re 1 Petition (Complaint) for Writ of Mandamus, filed by Francisco R. Amador, Eduvina I. Amador Signed by Judge Marcia G. Cooke on 2/28/2018. (tm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 18-20558-Civ-COOKE
IN RE:
FRANCISCO R. AMADOR
IN RE:
EDUVINA I. AMADOR
____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
THIS MATTER is before me upon Petitioners’ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
(ECF No. 1). I have carefully considered the Petition, the record, and the relevant legal
authorities. For the following reasons, Petitioners’ Petition is denied as moot.
I.

BACKGROUND1

On August 24, 2017, the bankruptcy judge in Case No. 17-13315-RAM issued an
order granting Petitioners’ motion to dismiss their bankruptcy case on the condition they pay
the reasonable attorneys’ fees of the bankruptcy trustee. See BC ECF No. 106. The order
specifically gave Petitioners a deadline by which to file any objections to the Trustee’s Fee
Statement, and provided that if Petitioners and Trustee’s counsel could not agree on a
reasonable fee and terms of payment, the Petitioners could file a motion. Id. Petitioners
appealed that order to the district court in Case No. 17-CIV-23502-MGC, arguing that the
order was a final appealable order, or alternatively, seeking leave to file an interlocutory
appeal. See DC ECF No. 1. I determined the order was not a final order and declined to
1

I take judicial notice of the documents filed in the related bankruptcy proceeding, Case No.
17-13315-RAM (“BC”), district court proceeding, Case No. 17-CIV-23502-MGC (“DC”),
and court of appeals proceeding Case No. 17-13350 (“COA”). See United States v. Jones, 29
F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994) (“[A] court may take notice of another court's order only
for the limited purpose of recognizing the ‘judicial act’ that the order represents or the subject
matter of the litigation.”). When citing to the record in the various cases, I will use the
foregoing acronyms; where no acronym is used, the reference is to a document in the instant
case.
1

consider their interlocutory appeal. DC ECF No. 17. Petitioners then filed a Notice of
Appeal, appealing my order to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. DC ECF No. 18. On
January 2, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction.
ECF No. 1-2, 35. On January 9, 2018, the Trustee filed a Motion to Set Hearing on its
Motion for Protective Order, Petitioners’ Motion to Compel, and Trustee’s Motion to
Extend Time to File Section 727 Complaint. See BC ECF No. 144. On January 16, 2018, the
bankruptcy court issued an Order Resetting Hearings and Setting Response Deadlines, which
set hearing dates for the motions and response deadlines for Petitioners to respond to the
Trustee’s motions. Id. On January 22, 2018, Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Eleventh Circuit’s order dismissing their appeal. See COA Motion. The Eleventh Circuit
denied the motion on February 23, 2018. See COA Order.
Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus against the bankruptcy court judge, requiring
the bankruptcy court judge to vacate the order resetting hearings or, alternatively, to stay the
bankruptcy court proceedings pending appeal.
II.

DISCUSSION

“Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to
cases and controversies.” Zinni v. ER Sols., Inc., 692 F.3d 1162, 1166 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94 (1968)). “With regard to mootness, the Supreme Court has
explained ‘a federal court has no authority to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract
propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in
the case before it.’” Id. (quoting Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12
(1992)). “An issue is moot ‘when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to
which the court can give meaningful relief.’” Friends of Everglades v. South Florida Water
Management Dist., 570 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fla. Ass’n of Rehab Facilities,
Inc. v. Fla. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1217 (11th Cir. 2000)).
Petitioners’ entire claim for relief is premised on the notion that their appeal is still
pending before the Eleventh Circuit. As discussed above, their appeal was dismissed on
January 2, 2018. As such, even if Petitioners had proven that they met the extraordinary
requirements to justify a writ of mandamus, a writ at this time would serve no meaningful
purpose, as the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to proceed with the case before it.
2

III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Petitioners’ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED as moot.
2. The above-styled cause is hereby DISMISSED.
3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as
moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 28TH day of February
2018.

Copies furnished to:
Francisco R. Amador, pro se
Eduvina I. Amador, pro se

3