IN RE: DIMITRIOS DEMIRIS

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the motion for leave to appeal of Debtor Dimitrios Demirisis DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk shall close the matter opened as 14-cv-1720. The parties shall proceed in accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. p. 8009 in the matter opened as 14-cv-1721, with Appellant-Debtors brief in support of his appeal, including required appendix thereto, being due 14 days from the entry of this order. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 8/11/14. (sr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE: DIMITRIOS DEMIRIS,

:

Civ. No.
14-1721 (KM)

Debtor-Appellant
:

V.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

BANK OF NEW JERSEY and GARY
S. JACOBSON, Trustee,
Appellees

IT APPEARING THAT:
(1) Debtor-Appellant Dimitrios Demiris initiated this action by filing a
motion for leave to appeal the order of the Bankruptcy Court (see Doc.
No. 1, 14-cv-1720) and a notice of appeal of the same order of the
Bankruptcy Court (see Doc. No. 1, 14-cv-1721); and that his motion
for leave to appeal attaches the contested order, in which the late
Bankruptcy Judge Morris Stern vacated the automatic stay of
Bankruptcy Code 362(a) as to real property located in Wyckoff, New
Jersey, upon motion for such relief brought by a bank as secured
creditor wishing to pursue foreclosure remedies (see Doc. No. 1-2, 14cv-l720 (Order of Hon. Morris Stern in Bankruptcy Case No. 1334149)); and that
(2) This Court has jurisdiction over appeals of final judgments, orders,
and decrees of the Bankruptcy Court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(l). In
contrast, this Court may obtain jurisdiction by granting leave to hear
appeals of interlocutory orders of the Bankruptcy Court, 28 U.S.C. §
158(a)(3), with decisions as to leave to be informed by the criteria of 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b). 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2); In re Bertoli, 812 F.2d 136, 139
(3d Cir. 1987); Jacobo v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 477 B.R. 533,
537-538 (D.N.J. 2012); and that
(3) In assessing whether an order of the Bankruptcy Court is final, this
Court employs a more flexible and practical approach than it would in

considering the finality of a district court ruling. The most important
factor is the impact of the order upon the bankrupt estate. In re Market
Square Inn, Inc., 978 F.2d 116, 120 (3d Cir. 1992) (“[F]inality must be
viewed pragmatically in bankruptcy appeals.”).
(4) Courts within this circuit have routinely determined that a
“bankruptcy court’s order granting relief from the automatic stay
constitutes a final order for purposes of appeal,” such that district
courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals of such orders under 28
U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). Fairfield Executive Assocs. v. Hyperion Credit Capital
Partners, L.P. (In re Fairfield Executive Assocs.), 161 B.R. 595, 598
(D.N.J. 1993); see In re Corner, 716 F.2d 168, 172 (3d Cir. 1983)
(ruling that a district court’s order lifting the automatic stay was final,
inasmuch as “it completes litigation on the question and subjects the
property to a foreclosure action in state court. Nothing more need be
done by the district court or the bankruptcy court on the matter of the
automatic stay, and the order of the district court ends this particular
controversy between debtors and creditors.”). Accordingly, this Court
has jurisdiction to hear the appeal sought by Debtor-Appellant.

ACCORDINGLY, having considered all of the foregoing and the other
documents in the record, and for good cause appearing,
IT IS this 11th Day of August, 2014,
ORDERED that the motion for leave to appeal of Debtor Dimitrios Demiris
is DENIED AS MOOT, and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close the matter opened as 1 4-cv1720. The parties shall proceed in accordance with Fed. R. Bankr. p. 8009 in
the matter opened as 14-cv-1721, with Appellant-Debtor’s brief in support of
his appeal, including required appendix thereto, being due 14 days from the
entry of this order.

HON. KEVIN MCNULTY
United States District Judg

2