In re Dernick, H-19-2235. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
Number: infdco20190807d89
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NANCY F. ATLAS , District Judge . This case is before the Court on appeal from the June 5, 2019 award of attorneys' fees as "fee shifting . . . per Rule 37" entered by United States Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez. 1 Appellees Stephen and David Dernick filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal [Doc. 3], noting that the appeal was from an interlocutory order and was filed without complying with the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 8004(b). Appellant David H. Russell Family Lt
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NANCY F. ATLAS , District Judge . This case is before the Court on appeal from the June 5, 2019 award of attorneys' fees as "fee shifting . . . per Rule 37" entered by United States Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez. 1 Appellees Stephen and David Dernick filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal [Doc. 3], noting that the appeal was from an interlocutory order and was filed without complying with the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 8004(b). Appellant David H. Russell Family Ltd..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NANCY F. ATLAS, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on appeal from the June 5, 2019 award of attorneys' fees as "fee shifting . . . per Rule 37" entered by United States Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez.1 Appellees Stephen and David Dernick filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal [Doc. 3], noting that the appeal was from an interlocutory order and was filed without complying with the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 8004(b). Appellant David H. Russell Family Ltd. Partnership, LLLP filed a Response [Doc. # 5], and Appellees filed a Reply [Doc. # 6].
The Bankruptcy Court's Order assessing attorneys' fees pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is an interlocutory order. See, e.g., In re Texas Bumper Exch., Inc., 333 B.R. 135, 138 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2005) ("The order from which defendant seeks relief in this motion addressed a nondispositive discovery issue. It did not dispose of the merits of the litigation. It is thus an interlocutory order."). "To permit an immediate appeal from such a sanctions order would undermine the very purposes of Rule 37(a), which was designed to protect courts and opposing parties from delaying or harassing tactics during the discovery process." Cunningham v. Hamilton Cty., Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 208 (1999). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Appeal [Doc. # 3] is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
FootNotes
1. In the June 5, 2019 ruling, Bankruptcy Judge Rodriguez ordered Appellees' counsel to file a fee application. It does not appear that a fee application has yet been filed, or that Appellant has been ordered to pay a specific amount.
Source: Leagle
