explaining that “[p]artial summary judgments … very rarely give rise to a final order for the purposes of appeal” because they “customarily leave some portion of the underlying ‘discrete dispute’ unresolved”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “[p]artial summary judgments … very rarely give rise to a final order for the purposes of appeal” because they “customarily leave some portion of the underlying ‘discrete dispute’ unresolved”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
IN RE: ANDREW B. GLASS,
Debtor.
/
ANDREW B. GLASS,
Appellant,
Case No. 8:20-cv-506-T-60
v. Bankr. No. 8:18-bk-2707-CPM
Adv. Proc. No. 8:18-ap-577-CPM
JET RECYCLING AMERICA, INC.,
Appellee.
/
ORDER GRANTING “APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION”
This matter is before the Court on “Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal for
Lack of Jurisdiction,” filed on March 23, 2020. (Doc. 5). Appellant, proceeding pro
se, responded in opposition to the motion on March 30, 2020. (Doc. 9). Upon review
of the motion, response, court file, and record, the Court finds as follows:
Factual Background
Appellee Jet Recycling America, Inc. (“JRA”) is a corporation that makes
products that help transform plastic waste into recycled products. (Doc. 7-12). At
JRA’s founding, Appellant Andrew B. Glass served as its Vice President and Chief
Technology and Marketing Officer. (Id.). According to JRA Glass violated his
fiduciary duty to JRA and its shareholders in several ways, including one incident
where he allegedly lied about a board member in an attempt to usurp control of the
business. (Id.). When his attempted coup failed, Glass intentionally interfered with
JRA’s business, stole JRA’s intellectual property for his own use and monetary gain,
and started a direct competitor to JRA under a nearly identical name – Jet
Recycling World, LLC. (Id.).
Procedural Background
In 2017, an arbitrator ruled that Glass engaged in fraudulent conduct and
repeatedly breached his fiduciary duties to JRA. (Id.). On January 19, 2018, a
California state court confirmed the arbitration award and entered judgment in
favor of JRA. (Id.).
On April 4, 2018, Glass filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida. See In re
Glass, No. 8:18-bk-2707-CPM (M.D. Fla. Bankr.). On November 19, 2018, in
connection with the bankruptcy case, JRA filed an adversary proceeding by filing a
two-count complaint objecting to the dischargeability of the California state court’s
judgment confirming the arbitration award.1 (Doc. 7-7).
JRA moved for summary judgment on Count I only, and Glass moved for
summary judgment on all counts. (Docs. 7-38; 7-47). On January 28, 2020, JRA
moved to amend its complaint and dismiss Count II. (Doc. 7-66). The same day, the
bankruptcy court held a hearing on the motions for summary judgment.2 (Doc. 15).
1 The following day, JRA amended its complaint, but maintained the same two counts. (Doc. 7-12).
2 The hearing also considered JRA’s request to take judicial notice, but that request is not relevant to
the instant motion. See (Doc. 15).
Following the hearing, on February 11, 2020, the bankruptcy court entered an order
that: (1) denied Glass’s motion for summary judgment; (2) granted JRA’s motion for
summary judgment as to Count I, finding specifically that Glass’s debt to JRA was
non-dischargeable; and (3) stated that the bankruptcy court would, by separate
order, grant JRA’s motion to voluntarily dismiss Count II. (Doc. 5-1). The
bankruptcy court entered a separate final judgment in favor of JRA as to Count I.
(Doc. 7-67). On February 24, 2020, Glass filed a notice of appeal on the summary
judgment order. (Doc. 1).
Legal Standard
The federal district courts function as appellate courts for review of final
judgments and certain interlocutory orders of the bankruptcy courts. See In re
Colortex Indus., Inc., 19 F.3d 1371, 1374 (11th Cir. 1994); 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The
bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, and findings of fact are
reviewed for clear error. Bunyan v. Remick, No. 8:18-cv-1519-T-36, 2019 WL
4805428, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2019) (citing In re Globe Mfg. Corp., 567 F.3d 1291,
1296 (11th Cir. 2009)); see also In re Piazza, 719 F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2013).
Analysis
JRA argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal because
Glass improperly appealed the summary judgment order rather than the final
judgment.3 Upon review, the Court agrees.
3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 is applicable to adversary proceedings in bankruptcy courts
through Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7058.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), a federal district court’s jurisdiction to hear
bankruptcy appeals is limited to “final judgments, orders, and decrees,” and certain
interlocutory appeals. “[A] final order in a bankruptcy proceeding is one that ends
the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its
judgment.” In re Culton, 111 F.3d 92, 93 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing In re Tidewater
Grp., Inc., 734 F.2d 794, 795-96 (11th Cir. 1984)). As such, “to be final, a
bankruptcy court order must completely resolve all of the issues pertaining to a
discrete claim, including issues as to the proper relief.” In re Steffen, 500 F. App’x
877, 879 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Donovan, 532 F.3d 1134, 1136-37 (11th Cir.
2008)) (finding that a dismissal order “did not fully resolve” a bankruptcy case
where “resolution of the case remained open and unfinished pending compliance
with the conditions” in the dismissal order).
In the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment order, the bankruptcy court
said it would “grant by separate order the Motion to Amend filed by JRA so as to
dismiss Count II of JRA’s Amended Complaint.” (Doc. 5-1). The summary
judgment order was therefore not a “final order” because Count II remained open
and pending. See, e.g., Failon v. Compass Chem. Int’l, LLC, 3:16-cv-317-JAG, 2016
WL 4599904, at *1-2 (E.D. Va. Sept 2, 2016) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction
because the order “was an interlocutory order … not a final order” where the order
granting partial summary judgment resolved Count II but not Count I); In re
Robinson, 194 B.R. 697, 700 (N.D. Ga. 1996) (explaining that “[p]artial summary
judgments … very rarely give rise to a final order for the purposes of appeal”
because they “customarily leave some portion of the underlying ‘discrete dispute’
unresolved”). Glass did not timely appeal the final judgment.4 See 28 U.S.C. §
158(a); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a). Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear
Glass’s appeal and “there are no equitable exceptions to such jurisdictional
requirements.” Ford v. Waage, No. 8:18-cv-2053-T-02, 2019 WL 2027729, at *8
(M.D. Fla. May 8, 2019) (quoting Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007)). As
such, the motion to dismiss is due to be granted. This appeal is dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, itis ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
1. “Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction” (Doc. 5)
is GRANTED. This appeal is DISMISSED.
2. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines
and thereafter CLOSE THIS CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 30th day of
June, 2020.
Oi Bees
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4 A party may file an interlocutory appeal of a non-final order, but only with leave of court. 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(a)(8). To do so, a plaintiff must timely file a motion seeking leave and, to succeed on that
motion, must establish that an interlocutory appeal is appropriate under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8004 and
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See, e.g., In re Robinson, 3:19-ev-1155-J-32, 2019 WL 5102921, at *1 (M.D. Fla.
Oct. 11, 2019) (denying a motion seeking leave to file an interlocutory appeal filed by a pro se
litigant). Plaintiff has not sought leave to file an interlocutory appeal and — even if he had — there
does not appear to be “substantial ground for difference of opinion” as to the outcome of this case.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
Page 5 of 5