Harrell et al v. Vaughn et al

Filing 4

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

i 'l iGINAL

l-',i..4
D
l l . l l : r :r - l i ; r 'i ( ] U R l
'l

IN

t': i.'r l.]!V.

COT'RT FOR THE
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
OF GEORGTA
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
2OJ5 IL
JAN
DUBLIN DIVISION

P

S $ . { I S T . FG A .
O

IN RE: PARADISE FARMS, INC.,
*

R-anlzrrrnl-,.'\/

12-30111

NI/'r

Debt or .

LISTER W. HARRELL, PARADISE
LLLP,
FARMS, INC., and SARALAND
6t

3t4-L47

Plaintiffs,
/ 4,,i\za raa

r\r

Bankruptcy

vs.

Number in
Court: 14-03013)

TIM VAUGHAN,LYNN SHEFFIELD,
DONALDHELMS, and TODD
BOUDREAUX.
Defendants.

ORDER

On December 3, 2014, Mr, Lister
o fL
v

anneal

in

sPPeq+

States

rhe

Bankruptcy

acirre-sar\,'

ln.lcrlvino

denies

Bankruptcy
HarrelI's

Mr.

nr-/-aa.li

(See Bankr.

Court.

No. 14-03013 (S.D. Ga. Sept.
from the

W. Harrell

Court's

flled
nn

nf

Doc. No. 5,

15, 20L4).)

a notice
t-ha

I'nired

Bankr.

The appeal is

Case
taken

Order of November 18, 201-4, which

request

proceed

to

in

forma pauperis.l

I

The Notice of Appeal is dated and signed on November 27,
2014, and postmarked December I, 20L4,' 1L is therefore timely.
I1 3 F.3d 1339, 1341 (11tr Cir.
Adams v. United States,
1999)
(\'tlrder
ic

l-hp

f he
.]:f

a

\mai
e

rrr'l a
lhox
qnnar
nri
dcl

'

rha

irzprq

d^l- a

^f

^

itinn

naf

fi

linn
nr

wj1-h
nrhar

f hF
filinn

.^rrf

t
rn

(Bankr. Doc. No. 3 . )
are courts

Federal- courts
r ^ I(
( l iI 5 L Ir - - L

i^f

t'nac

nf

q

annar'l

l ^ . . r r + / - \ r !\ 1 ,
/

with

orders

-+
L

thc

wtrf

of

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

the court

to

'I

a:rra

llLrL

n€

enneal

Fed.

R.

as

as

a

mofion

Bankr.

P.

described

interlocutory

in

28

f l-A

.ii qi-ri.t

for

feave

8004(d) .

whether

leave

sl renofh

of

racord

./\r,rL
-

and

and

for
lLl

Eufton,

The order

Harrell

from

v

should

oranr

rz-

or

1

l-.\ :nna:.
f he

-his

nof

iCe

c'lenv i|

aouru

granted

be
o'

NoLice

'la:rra

.'treat

Tav

-L.u),

sought

has not

far

A r : r - o c ' l' n a
r

the

is "one

order or j udgmenL, buL

e-Lther

appeal

to

court

In re

mnrinn

uvu

S

See generally

omitted) .

:

U.S.C.

and l-eaves nothing

not a final

if

12)

r - iL r r r s n a r i ^ d ^
L ma
PsL!\,u-

other

judgment."

Erran

c o n s . id e r

the

afl

order.' and Mr.

r

_L5

(3)

199?) (ciLation

rnna:l

Lhree

i r*r* Y a.r.m.e - sl '- l
J al . - . n

rLhr a s
r

P. 8001(b) & 8003.

appeals is

c,rnh

fin^l

adrrLr
!r u u L r n i l r 9 n n

on Lhe merits

an inLerlocuto.ry
1-a filo

n!
ur

do buc execuce ics

E.3d 92, 93 (11.' Cir.

rather

l1\

A final- order in a bankruptcy

litigacion

which Mr. Harrell

over

lu

C.lrrri.

and

court,

- .risdiction

As a

in 28 U.S.C. S 158(a) (1);

rr9

S 1121(d) ;

leave

LhaL ends the

^^

rral

R:nkrrrnr.-r/

a iJa
fi nrrrru ! :usu n f

jurisdiction.

finited

y

as described

- a r I n e s 'r lJ e
sI n r ar

11 U. S. C.

under

^^

frnm

and decrees,

orders,
'iht- ^r

+hr ^

^^,r?f

L\JL]ILr

of

Annca l

will

on
fj

"

Iezl

the
on

December 3, 2014,
Tn

riol- ermi

ni

nrr

r^rhof hor

l-/1 .rr.rnl-

.li

nriqnn arfho-iries
f-Dec. 1, 2014).
8002(c) (1) (effective

e,,-rai

i nnr

rrz

!l

i n t L Ur !l . , /r^ , r r v. !\
a
vvur

rrr

-rlso Fed. R. Bankr.

r \ jr

P.

: y v Ero.t \r a ^
I
qv .\

q

f r^m

a

same standard

set

.li q.rcrinnarv

inrer'^.

^^,,.r-e

shnw
/ .? l
\ /

n!f
v

:nno:l

l'l )

ri-^r\r rnna:l
Iln.lar

rhe

<

nni'rinn

,
^ m r - l n . r , v s-! ^ , r r t s v

:r,.1

issue woufd materiafly

1)q)

bank-ruDtcv appeals

courts

frlr

on:l

a firm

I

nases

final

Upon due consideration,

the

Mr. Harrelf
for

scandard

Accordingly,

IT

Cferk is directed

a

IeSo.Lut.ion

termination

whi le

to

reserve

zrane-al

lrr

nf

laW

of

of
the

of the

interlocutory
Lewis,

5L9

interfocutory

refainino

fo-

.he

judgment ru.Le,"),
the Court exercises

feave to

appeal

discretionary
the

Augusta,

1ts dlscretlon

because he has not met
interlocutory

appeal

Ceorgia,

zw!r.

UN]TED

appeal.

be DISMISSED.

The

Dendinq motions are

DENIED AS MOOT.

u.atLL]aL y,

mr 5L
I L Ur - +

difference

Tnc. v.

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

at

n a r r r ,- r
y

the

to S 1292(b) requesrs would

design

IS ORDERED
that

ORDER ENTERED

to

lra!

fl]]ectinn

a1low

Lhe

which governs

i n.r

for

i lrrerii-319

resort

rcrriour

and denies

--lund

9!(

Caterpiflar

comport wiLh Congress'

courts

r nJn/au rer lr r v
ql l l ,

should

sparinqlv.

hardly

federaf

rn

USeS

courts

r ^ , , - \ n t. 1 l I i n a
r

-he

t?J

6l , 14 (1996) ("Routine

rcxcenl-i

lts'\

advance the ultimate

District

COUrC

Frnm district

rrLl(f,!

qr"vrr:,

litigation.

c

nraqFnj- q a

or,.lar

-lr StIiCt

1- a
h

28 U.S.C. S 1292(b),

.\s7ar r^rhir-h rhere
v!\!

vvrrrrv'r

u.s.

,^.\rrrr

in

forth

<
J

oyyLuf

thaf

^\'

banknrnl-

thi s

,6--