Curtis et al v. Segraves

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellees Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 6], is granted, and this matter is dismissed. 6 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 9/11/15. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
In Re:
PATRICIA ANN SEGRAVES,
Debtor.
___________________________________
ALAN BOYD CURTIS, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
PATRICIA ANN SEGRAVES,
Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 4:15CV347 HEA
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Motion for
Leave of the Court to Appeal filed by Jeanine Saxton and Alan Boyd Curtis, [Doc.
No. 6]. Appellants have failed to respond to the Motion. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motion is granted.
Appellant is correct that the Motion for Leave to Appeal fails to identify the
Orders of the Bankruptcy Court they are appealing. Moreover, at the time of the
filing of the appeal, the adversary proceeding in which Appellants are parties are
not completed and a final order had not been entered.
This Court’s jurisdiction is set in 28 U.S.C. § 158(a):

the district court shall have jurisdiction to hear appeals: (1) from final
judgments, orders, and decrees; (2) from interlocutory orders and decrees
issued under section 1121 increasing or reducing the time periods referred to
in section 1121 of such title; and (3) with leave of the court, from other
interlocutory orders and decrees:
and, with leave of the court, from interlocutory orders and decrees, of
bankruptcy judges entered in cases and proceedings referred to the
bankruptcy judges under section 157 of this title.
The Motion seeking leave to appeal fails to satisfy the requirements for filing an
interlocutory appeal: Section 1292(b) of Title 28 requires that (1) the question involved
be one of law; (2) the question be controlling; (3) there exists a substantial ground for
difference of opinion respecting the correctness of the bankruptcy courts’ decision; and
(4) a finding that an immediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination
of the litigation. Because Appellant has failed to set out the Order or Orders from which
she appeals, it is impossible for this Court to ascertain whether it has jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 6], is
granted, and this matter is dismissed.
Dated this 11th day of September, 2015.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE