Havens et al v. Maritime Communications/Land Mobile LLC
ORDER granting 92 Motion to Dismiss. This CASE is CLOSED. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 6/14/2017. (dbm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SKYBRIDGE SPECTRUM FOUNDATION,
VERDE SYSTEMS LLC, ENVIRONMENTAL LLC,
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION & MONITORING LLC, and
TELESAURUS HOLDINGS GB LLC
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-180-SA
MARITIME COMMUNICATIONS/LAND MOBILE LLC
The Appellants in this case filed a number of appeals from the Bankruptcy Court
regarding certain executory contracts and licenses. The appeals were consolidated into this lead
case. See Order  consolidating 1:13-CV-180, 1:13-CV-181, 1:13-CV-182, 1:13-CV-183,
1:13-CV-184, 1:13-CV-190, 1:13-CV-191, 1:13-CV-192, 1:13-CV-193 and 1:13-CV-194.
The basis of the Appellants’ claim and status in the bankruptcy case was the subject of a
separate case in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The New Jersey
District Court dismissed the Appellants’ claims. See Havens v. Mobex Network Servs., LLC, No.
CIV. A. 11-993 KSH, 2011 WL 6826104 (D. N.J. Dec. 22, 2011), aff’d, 820 F.3d 80 (3d Cir.
2016) and Havens v. Mar. Commc’ns/Land Mobile, LLC, No. CIV. A. 11-993 KSH, 2014 WL
4352300 (D. N.J. Sept. 2, 2014), aff’d sub nom. Havens v. Mobex Network Servs., LLC, 820 F.3d
80 (3d Cir. 2016). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the
dismissal by the District Court, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. See
Havens v. Mobex Network Servs., LLC, 820 F.3d 80 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, Havens v. Mobex
Network Servs., LLC, – U.S.–, 137 S. Ct. 496, 196 L. Ed. 2d 404 (2016).
In addition to the litigation in the Third Circuit, the Appellants were also involved in
proceedings before the Federal Communications Commission related to the validity of the
licenses at issue in the underlying bankruptcy case and the transfer of those licenses. Based on
the information in the record, the Commission denied the relief requested by the Appellants,
leaving them with no interest in the licenses in question. The Commission also denied the
Appellants’ request for reconsideration.
Appellee Maritime filed a Motion to Dismiss  arguing that the final adjudication of
the Appellants’ claims in both the Third Circuit and before the Commission leaves them with no
claim or interest in the underlying bankruptcy case, and thus no standing to prosecute their
appeals in this Court. In addition, the Appellants are now unrepresented by counsel. This Court
entered an Order  granting the Appellants 30 days to procure new counsel and additional
time to respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss. Individual Appellant Havens entered a notice
of his intent to proceed pro se  and filed a Response  to the Motion to Dismiss.1
Havens’ Response essentially concedes that his claims were extinguished in the Third Circuit
and before the Commission, but he argues that he may have some as-yet unexhausted avenues to
challenge the Commission’s rulings.
In appeals from bankruptcy court, the “appellant shoulders the burden of alleging facts
sufficient to demonstrate that it is a proper party to appeal.” Fortune Nat. Res. Corp. v. U.S.
Dep’t of Interior, 806 F.3d 363, 366 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Rohm & Hass Tex., Inc. v. Ortiz
Bros. Insulation, Inc., 32 F.3d 205, 208 (5th Cir. 1994)). “In ruling on a motion to dismiss for
want of standing, both the trial and reviewing courts must accept as true all material allegations
The corporate Plaintiffs, Skybridge Spectrum Foundation, Verde Systems LLC, Environmental LLC, Intelligent
Transportation & Monitoring LLC, and Telesaurus Holdings GB LLC did not respond to the Court’s Order directing
them to inform the Court of their new representation, and failed to respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss. The
Court determines that these parties have abandoned their appeal.
of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party.” Id. at 366
(citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 95 S. Ct. 2197, 45 L. Ed. 2d 343 (1975)). The
standard to determine whether a party has standing in bankruptcy court is the “person aggrieved”
test. In re Coho Energy Inc., 395 F.3d 198, 202 (5th Cir. 2004). “The ‘person aggrieved’ test is
an even more exacting standard than traditional constitutional standing.” Id. This test “demands a
higher causal nexus between act and injury; appellant must show that he was directly and
adversely affected pecuniarily by the order of the bankruptcy court in order to have standing to
appeal.” Id. at 203. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Applying this standard to the instant case, it is clear that the Appellants failed to carry
their burden of demonstrating standing. In light of the decisions by the Third Circuit, the
Supreme Court, and the Commission, as well as other evidence in the record, it appears that the
Appellants have no claim in the underlying case and no proof of adverse pecuniary impact. Nor
have they brought forth any contradictory evidence. With no claim in the underlying case, the
Appellants lack standing to prosecute this appeal.
For these reasons, the Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss  is GRANTED. This appeal is
DISMISSED with prejudice, and this CASE is CLOSED.
SO ORDERED on this, the 14th day of June, 2017.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?