Harrell et al v. Mullis et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL/CASE. This case is closed. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 1/14/15. (cmr)

NR
IGINAL
rN THE I'NTT8D STATES DISTRICT COT'RT FOR
SOUTHERNDISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DI'BI.IN DIVISION

,";,;;iirfigg,u
?0i5 I i+ pft
Jlh
iLEii

IN RE:

SARALAND LLLP,
I
*

R.nlzr,r^f^\'

sovlrsr.
orTE

12-30113

N^

Debtor.

LISTER W. HARREIL; SARALAND,
LLLP; and PARADISE FARMS, INC.

cv 314-145
Plaintiffs,

(Adversary Number in
Ban krupt cy C o u r t : 1 4 - 0 3 0 0 9 )
NIKKI HARRE],L MULLIS; BRETT
COLEMAN; SID CARTER; SARA
HARRELL; DONAID HELMS; and
LYNN SHtrEFIELD,
Defendants.

ORDER

On December 3, 20IA, Mr. Lister
n !f
u

ry nu
q n y ! a rr

l

in

fho

r r, nurc' !l fa r l
u ,

r, in
y f r' r 9

f -nm

f he

: d v L aJrqc! :
qurr!
t

rrr

n!rvn r - o !o r^9i
y
vscs ,

(See Bankr.

Stares Bankruprcy Courc.
No. 14-03009 (S.D. ca.

rr

Jun.

12,

a^ttrF I c

Bankrunt/-\/

W. Harreff

fifed
nn

nf

a notice
fha

IlnirFA

Doc. No, 30, Bankr. Case

20L4).)

The appeal

' ^ r a lI - r e a s o r e d

is

taken

Reoort

and

Recommendation of November 18, 20L4, which recommends deniaf
Mr

H:

:

rral

l'e

roa,ra<r-

l-.\

nr/-\/-aa.i

i rl

f .\rm:

nrrrnari

c

I

of

i Rrhlzr

The Notice of Appeal is dated and signed on November 27,
2414, and postmarked December I, 2014; it is therefore time.Iy.
173 F.3d 1339, 1341 (1]-th Cir.
Adams v. United States,
1999)

Doc.

No.

26. )

The annea |
qyl/vq+

lru

two reasons.
Ran^rf

e

aq

r/1

Mr
i-ha

itq

Hrrral

nf

h:i/menl-

nncc] ral fer

must be dismissed

on December 9, 20!4,

First,

<i^l- rra

wi rhnrrr

-an'i

thiq

Ra.^r'trntrncla- i nn

An.l

n:',nari

'n

this

nninron

I

!

r a r r r J i q if t c .
L9uf r

Court adopted the

and

denied

n^-

lR:nkr
f i l inrr

for

I\^
l

fca

forma

I

/a
q

r" hr if
r

in

-hrrc

annerl

mrr-_

qIJI/Lur

J

L.'urL

be dismissed.
Second, federaf
As a district
tL r j'y^Ua <
J

^f

rnna:l

c

qPylqrJ

v!

Frc'm 1-ha Rrnl<rrrnf

and decrees,

orders,
i nrarl.\.^rrf

. \ r _ r7
!1

orders

q

i u-l r: Y
r r ln r _qrJa r rq i

of

158 (a) (3) and Fed. R. Bankr.
28 U.S.C. S 158(a) .
-h-,

^ n . - .c l - h a
r

the courl

to

the

'qq7)

Recommendation from

which

q?

q2-

order

judgment,

or

the
is

the

qnnt rr.\

.l^l- a

'maifbox
^

nri

authorities
/1\
\f

/

but

/Af

fa^r-i

\slrEuLrvs

for
\rA

Mr,

merits

dol

the

date of

filing
on

nori

)i1

1wt1t.

ii

see also
l\

court

nr

S

is "one

.rol-hi^o

for

re Ful-ton. 111

appeal-s is

:

Per

See oenera]l-v

Thc

an interfocurory

irrerq
1

oni ttF,-l\

n c r i n du^ r D
! !

U.S.C.

28

I eaves

fn

12)

interl-ocutory

in

judgment. "

mailing.");
na^

ancl

Harrel]-

ralher

i r r u Ya' ml cLn ,i - g d . tg . J
J

r'i mp

af l- other

described

(cirafion

ru.Le,'

q.nar

fha

P. 8001(b) & 8003.

on

f11'h c'r-

F ?d

fin:l
.rlrq!

ror]trr-inr^l

(3)

as

execute its

do but

/ 1 )/
J
\

order in a bankruptcy

A final

I i-idrtion

ar

and

court,

a.'\rrrr'

over three

ln 28 U.S.C. S 158(a) (I);

nr'r

S 1121(d);

feave

with

.\/

as described

a In }n a u tl J
J / Jv r

11 U.S.C.

under

Court only has jurisdiction

this

court,

jurisdiction.

are cou.rts of Iimited

courts

Qannrf

not

a finaf
and Mr.

order;

with
nrhar

,rnd

the
fi

court

I i na

Fn

Eed. R. Bankr.

P.

Harreff

has not

feave to appeal- is

motjon for
-^r'rioi

"na\,

l-eave to

souqht

\ ' t -r F A -

-hF

thar

chnrr'l d

l-re rrran-crl

\Jr

filed,

a motion

R.

f or

Bankr.

whether

consider

a

however, the districl

as

Fed.

will

Court

this

Even if

such appeal.

annea l

t

; t

"'., -r

Accordingly,

not

nof i r-e of

rienrr

file

feave

and

8004(d) .

P.

Ieave to

appeaf

d _L

r.1PPE

nn

tl-e

sf ran.rth

'^

.
- h
_ n ^ ^ e ^ r er r m r n r n g th '.h. a t - .a.r- Q+ L- ^rh^

q

:nncal

f r.rr

a

same standard

h:^lr

set

^\,

r"^r

in

forth

of

f he

..1iq.rFl-

i."\.rr:nl-

^^,.r+

rh^

28 U,S.C.

ch^Lr

nrf
v

t-h.t-

r n P roqr4' rl
qPn

/1I

llndar

nr.l,^r

among coJrLs,

harkrrrnf
vut-^!uI,LUl,

r

courts

snari

!Hq!f

comport wjth

rerzi cw for

federal

a firm

n o l v -.

r.:ses

final

Upon dL.,e onsideration,
c
and denies Mr.

Harrell

ground for

should
C ar i- a. - n i
ear
y |

IY-t

Congress'

\erzr-enti onal t

courts

linaf

n - - r l-- r n .
,nr- y

USeS

courrs to the
-.9

nrrl-\Ly
/

l rla-! -

- -r ^\ - ,
f
r

l
_LaW

difference
oI

of
the

of the

interlocutory
v.

lJYw-Lr,

^

. .1 9
J

to S 1292 (b) reguests woufd

design
while

mL u - L
r. ,rr -

lrq!

termination

al-l-ow

the

which governs

d
r nJl_-L _ L _ L n g 'U eF i ^ L . 1 O n ^ f r
l i ^
q ,^- S O

-^hl-

advance the ultimate

U.S. 61, 14 11996) ("Routine resort
hardly

: I PL r'
u nr n o a f

arl

Notice

and (3) che immediate resolution

Dist.rict

r.rz annea lq

: nt
q,

\p/,

the

COUI' L

S 1292(b),

1 .? q ? / h \
L 2L

a substanciaL

issue would material]y
Iitigation.

€
r

nracanl-e

(2) over which t.here is
opinion

iCI

inr

district

e

l-ha

and

i nn.rrrr

z . ii S t f

c li s r . - e f i n n a - yr r tirnLtecr rulu
r
! r
-^,,rtc

IecoId

r.o reserve

nenerallv

interlocuLory

retain'ro

rnr

fhe

judgment rule.").
the Court exercises

feave to

its

discretion

appeaf because he has not met

che standard for a discretionary
-hi

s

CI1rrrf

-hrn)r.rh
Lrr!vuvrr

A I rFa.lv
sr!vsv),

-mad

:ffi

r r s q u.vl y \ nvtr i n n n r . - l o a .Lr
!LJ

.

pendinq

motions

ORDER ENTERED at

fha

Ranr\-t

Acr-nrrli

rrvvv!e!rY!.t,

appeal be DISMISSED. The Clerk
and all

interlocutory

is

nnl rr

appeal.
and

IT

IS

directed

In fact'

ReCOmmendatiOn
ORDERED Ehat

the

t o C L O S Et h e c a s e ,

are DENIED AS MOOT.
Augusta,

Georgia,

this

UN]TED STATES ISTRICT JUDG