Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In re Houston Bluebonnet, L.L.C., H-19-1108. (2019)

Court: District Court, S.D. Texas Number: infdco20190422e22 Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER BANKRUPTCY NO. 16-34850. ADVERSARY NO. 16-3251 SIM LAKE , District Judge . Pending before the court is Jennie Kay Lyle Bierscheid, Executrix of the Estate of Kenneth R. Lyle, deceased, Lyle Engineering Company, Houston Bluebonnet, L.L.C., E&H, L.P., American Universal Investment Co., and Esther Suckle, Trustee of the Suckle 1999 Living Trust's ("Appellants") Motion for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order of the Bankruptcy Court (Docket Entry No. 2), to which appellees Henry R. Hamm
More

ORDER

BANKRUPTCY NO. 16-34850.

ADVERSARY NO. 16-3251

Pending before the court is Jennie Kay Lyle Bierscheid, Executrix of the Estate of Kenneth R. Lyle, deceased, Lyle Engineering Company, Houston Bluebonnet, L.L.C., E&H, L.P., American Universal Investment Co., and Esther Suckle, Trustee of the Suckle 1999 Living Trust's ("Appellants") Motion for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order of the Bankruptcy Court (Docket Entry No. 2), to which appellees Henry R. Hamman, The George and Mary Josephine Hamman Foundation, Laura Hamman Fain, and Elizabeth Hamman Oliver ("Appellees") have filed Hammans' Objection to Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Interlocutory Appeal (Docket Entry No. 3). Appellants seek leave to file an interlocutory appeal from the Order Granting Hamman's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Lyle's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 28 in Adversary No. 16-3251).

Bankruptcy Rule 8004 allows the court to permit an appeal from an interlocutory order of the bankruptcy court. Having considered the parties' arguments the court concludes that the resources of the parties and the courts would be more efficiently utilized by denying the motion and allowing the court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review the case after the bankruptcy court has entered a final judgment. The court also concludes that granting Appellants' motion would likely delay the final resolution of the case by the bankruptcy court.

Accordingly, Appellants' Motion for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order of the Bankruptcy Court (Docket Entry No. 2) is DENIED. Appellants' Second Notice of Appeal from Order Granting Hamman's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Lyle's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 1-1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer