Balke et al

Filing 25

ORDER entered: A district court has broad discretion in separating issues and claims for trial "[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize." Fed R. Civ. P. 42. Because the first appeal cannot proceed until the merits of the third appeal are resolved, it is more efficient to separately administer the two appeals. The appellees' motion to bifurcate, (Docket Entry No. 24), is granted. (Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
THOMAS E. BALKE, TEBJES INC.
d/b/a BASIC EQUIPMENT and
ULTRAWAVE TECHNOLOGY
FOR EMULSION CONTROL, LLC
d/b/a ULTRATEC, LLC,
Appellants,
v.
DON B. CARMICHAEL, KK & PK
FAMILY, L.P., BARRY D. WINSTON,
and GARY EMMOTT,
Appellees.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

January 28, 2019
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-18-731

ORDER
The appellants, Thomas Balke, TEBJES Inc., doing business as Basic Equipment, and
Ultrawave Technology for Emulsion Control LLC, doing business as Ultratec LLC, filed three
bankruptcy appeals with this court from orders entered in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding,
Bankruptcy Number 14-3375. The first appeal, Civil Action No. H-18-731, is from the bankruptcy
court’s January 31, 2018 findings of fact and conclusions of law and from nine other orders in that
adversary proceeding. The second appeal, Civil Action No. H-18-937, is from the bankruptcy
court’s order dated March 9, 2018, denying in part an amended motion filed by the defendants, Don
B. Carmichael, KK & PK Family LP, Barry D. Winston, and Gary Emmott, to reconsider the
bankruptcy court’s February 21, 2018 order dismissing the defendants’ motion to alter, amend, or
vacate judgment and their alternative motion for new trial. The third appeal, Civil Action No. H-18731, is from the bankruptcy court’s order dated October 18, 2018, determining the record designated

1

for the first appeal. (Docket Entry No. 24 at 2).
On January 10, 2019, the defendants and appellees filed a motion to bifurcate or to sever the
first and third appeals. (Docket Entry No. 24 at 1). The appellees argue that the two appeals are
from separate actions and that different briefing schedules and deadlines will be set for each.
A district court has broad discretion in separating issues and claims for trial “[f]or
convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize.” FED R. CIV. P. 42. Because the
first appeal cannot proceed until the merits of the third appeal are resolved, it is more efficient to
separately administer the two appeals.
The appellees’ motion to bifurcate, (Docket Entry No. 24), is granted.

SIGNED on January 28, 2019, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
Chief United States District Judge

2