Kentucky Employees Retirment System et al v. Seven Counties Services, Inc.
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 2/24/14 Dismissing Case. Motion 1 for leave to appeal is DENIED; The motion 4 to stay proceedings is DENIED as moot. cc:counsel, USBC (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CASE NO. 3:13-MC-33-H
IN RE:
SEVEN COUNTIES SERVICES, INC.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court is confronted with two motions. Defendants in a bankruptcy adversary action,
Kentucky Employers Retirement System (“KERS”) had moved for leave to appeal from a
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by the Bankruptcy Court on November 8, 2013. In
response, the debtor and appellee in this case, Seven Counties Services, Inc., has moved this
Court to stay proceedings in this appeal pending the outcome of a related adversary action in the
Bankruptcy Court. The Court has reviewed both of the lengthy motions and response and
believes the brief response will suffice.
As to the KERS’s motion, the Court concludes that it does not require leave of this Court
to make its appeal. Therefore, KERS should make its appeal in due course and the matter will be
docketed in the appropriate manner. Because the Court has essentially denied the KERS’s
motion for leave, Seven Counties’ motion to stay the proceedings is essentially moot. In any
event, the Court believes that the Bankruptcy Court in the Seven Counties adversary action is in
the best position to determine whether going forward with its trial is an appropriate and efficient
use of the Court and parties’ time.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of KERS for leave to appeal is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motion of Seven Counties to stay proceedings is
DENIED as moot.
February 24, 2014
cc:
Counsel of Record & Bankruptcy Court
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?