Peterson v. Bestway Heating Company, Inc.
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: The Court, in its discretion, denies the Trustee's motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal 2 . Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 11/12/2021. Mailed notice. (ym, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
In re:
MACK INDUSTRIES, LTD., et al.
)
)
)
Debtors.
)
____________________________________)
)
RONALD R. PETERSON, as Chapter 7
)
Trustee for Mack Industries, Ltd.,
)
)
Plaintiff-Appellant,
)
)
v.
)
)
BESTWAY HEATING COMPANY, INC., )
)
Defendant-Appellee.
)
Bankruptcy No. 17-9308
Honorable Carol A. Doyle
Bankruptcy Adv. No. 19-0459
Case No. 21-cv-3123
Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Ronald R. Peterson, as Chapter 7 Trustee for Mack Industries, debtor, filed an adversary
proceeding along with 436 other lawsuits seeking to avoid and recover allegedly fraudulent obligations
and transfers. In the present case, the Trustee alleges that Mack Industries paid Bestway Heating, a
heating contractor, for the improvement of real estate that was not owned by Mack Industries. After
the bankruptcy court denied Count I of the Trustee’s amended complaint, the Trustee filed the present
motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 and Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 8004. For the following reasons, the Court, in its discretion, denies the Trustee’s
motion.
Background
On March 13, 2020, the Trustee filed an amended complaint against Bestway Heating alleging
avoidance of and recovery of constructive fraudulent transfers (Count I) and avoidance of and recovery
of actual fraudulent transfers (Count II). Bestway then filed a motion to dismiss Count I of the
amended complaint. On May 26, 2021, the bankruptcy judge, Carol A. Doyle, dismissed Count I with
prejudice referencing a Memorandum Opinion in a similar case, Peterson v. Premier Elec. Servs. Corp., 19ap-0148. On June 10, 2021, Peterson filed the present motion for leave to appeal the May 26, 2021
interlocutory order, which only disposed of one of the two counts in the Trustee’s amended complaint.
Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), district courts have discretion to accept jurisdiction over
interlocutory bankruptcy appeals. In re Woodlawn Cmty. Dev. Corp., 613 B.R. 671, 675 (N.D. Ill. 2020)
(Shah, J.). “Whether an interlocutory appeal of a non-final bankruptcy order is appropriate is analyzed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).” In re Manzo, 577 B.R. 759, 763 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (Alonso, J.) (citation
omitted). There are certain criteria required to grant a § 1292(b) motion, including a controlling
question of law where there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate
appeal would materially advance the litigation. Ahrenholz v. Board of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 219 F.3d 674, 675
(7th Cir. 2000); 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
“Question of law” in the context of § 1292(b) goes to the “meaning of a statutory or
constitutional provision, regulation, or common law doctrine.” Ahrenholz, 219 F.3d at 676. A mere
disagreement in how a court applies a well-settled standard to the particular facts of a case is not
grounds for interlocutory appeal. See In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., 630 F.3d 622, 626 (7th Cir.
2010). In the end, § 1292(b) requests for interlocutory review are for exceptional cases. Caterpillar Inc.
v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 74, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996).
Discussion
In the present motion, the Trustee argues that, in making her determination, Judge Doyle went
beyond the facts as alleged in the complaint and drew inferences in Bestway’s favor. The Trustee thus
contends that the controlling question of law is that Judge Doyle applied the wrong legal standard at
the motion to dismiss stage because when “evaluating a complaint on a motion to dismiss, the court
must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept well-pleaded facts as
true, and draw all inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” As the Trustee explains in his reply brief, the
2
controlling question of law is “in ruling on a motion to dismiss, should a judge accept well-pleaded
facts as true and draw all inferences in plaintiff’s favor?”
In the context of a motion for interlocutory appeal, the question of law requirement concerns
an abstract or pure issue of law, such as the meaning of a statute. See Ahrenholz, 219 F.3d at 677. It is
not a disagreement with the way a trial court applied a well-settled procedural standard of law to the
particular facts of the case. See In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litig., 630 F.3d at 626; see also Ahrenholz, 219
F.3d at 676 (“question of law” as used in § 1292(b) does not mean “whether the party opposing
summary judgment has raised a genuine issue of material fact”). Accordingly, the Trustee has failed to
establish that there is a pure question of law for interlocutory review. Instead, he is arguing that the
bankruptcy court did not apply the federal pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal, a legal standard
for which there are no substantial grounds for differences of opinion. See Lukis v. Whitepages Inc., No.
19 C 4871, 2020 WL 6287369, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2020) (Feinerman, J.) (“The scope and
application of Twombly’s plausibility standard is now settled.”).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court, in its discretion, denies the Trustee’s motion for leave to
file an interlocutory appeal [2]. Civil case terminated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/12/2021
Entered: _____________________________
SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN
United States District Judge
3
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?