Case: 18-13132 Date Filed: 03/08/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-13132
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-24580-UU,
Bkcy No. 1:16-bkc-21262-AJC
In re:
STEVEN G. LEGUM,
Debtor.
_______________________________________________________________
STEVEN G. LEGUM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MOSHE ENBAR,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 8, 2019)
Case: 18-13132 Date Filed: 03/08/2019 Page: 2 of 5
Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Legum (“Plaintiff”), a lawyer proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s order dismissing -- as moot -- Plaintiff’s appeal from an order of the
bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court dismissed Plaintiff’s adversary complaint
in the Chapter 7 proceedings of Moche Enbar (“Debtor”). No reversible error has
been shown; we affirm.
Briefly stated, Debtor filed the Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition underlying this
appeal in 2016. Plaintiff was not listed among the secured and unsecured creditors
identified in Debtor’s bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiff filed a claim against
Debtor’s estate, asserting that Plaintiff had a judgment lien against Debtor’s real
property.
Plaintiff also later filed an adversary complaint against Debtor, seeking to
prevent Debtor from obtaining a bankruptcy discharge under
11 U.S.C. § 727. The
district court denied both Debtor’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s cross-motion
for summary judgment. The case then proceeded to trial, during which Debtor
moved again for involuntary dismissal. The bankruptcy court determined that
Plaintiff had failed to produce “a scintilla of evidence that would justify denial of
2
Case: 18-13132 Date Filed: 03/08/2019 Page: 3 of 5
discharge under 727.” The bankruptcy court thus granted Debtor’s motion and
dismissed Plaintiff’s adversary proceeding on 7 December 2017.
Plaintiff appealed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal to the district court.
Plaintiff, meanwhile, sought no stay of discharge in the underlying bankruptcy
case. On 15 May 2018 -- while Plaintiff’s appeal was still pending in the district
court -- the bankruptcy court granted Debtor a Chapter 7 discharge. Plaintiff filed
no appeal from the discharge order; the order of discharge thus became final on 30
May. Thereafter, the district court dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal as moot.
We review de novo a district court’s determination that a bankruptcy appeal
is moot. First Union Real Estate Equity & Mortg. Invs. v. Club Assocs. (In re Club
Assocs.),
956 F.2d 1065, 1069 (11th Cir. 1992).
Under Article III of the Constitution, a federal court’s jurisdiction is limited
to active “cases” and “controversies.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.,
568 U.S. 85, 90
(2013). An “actual controversy” must exist throughout all stages of litigation.
Id.
at 90-91. A case becomes moot when “the parties lack a legally cognizable interest
in the outcome.” Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Health &
Rehab. Servs.,
225 F.3d 1208, 1216-17 (11th Cir. 2000). “Central to a finding of
mootness is a determination by an appellate court that it cannot grant effective
judicial relief.” In re Club Assocs., 956 F.2d at 1069. If -- after the
commencement of a lawsuit -- an event occurs that “create[s] a situation in which
3
Case: 18-13132 Date Filed: 03/08/2019 Page: 4 of 5
the court can no longer give the plaintiff meaningful relief, the case is moot and
must be dismissed.” Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities,
225 F.3d at 1217.
In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, an order of discharge is a final order
marking the end of the adjudication of claims against the bankruptcy estate. Green
Point Credit, LLC v. McLean (In re McLean),
794 F.3d 1313, 1322 (11th Cir.
2015). A party seeking to appeal a discharge order must file a notice of appeal
within 14 days after entry of the order. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). The
timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Williams v.
EMC Mortg. Corp. (In re Williams),
216 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2000). If an
appellant seeking review of an order of the bankruptcy court fails to file a timely
notice of appeal, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
Id.
In the district court, Plaintiff argued that the bankruptcy court erred in failing
to grant Plaintiff summary judgment and in failing to grant the denial of Debtor’s
discharge. Plaintiff sought -- in essence -- a judgment from the district court that
Debtor should be denied a Chapter 7 discharge.
Debtor, however, had already been granted a Chapter 7 discharge. Plaintiff
failed to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order of discharge; so, the district court
lacked jurisdiction to review that order. See
id. As a result, the district court was
no longer able to provide Plaintiff with the relief he sought. The district court
4
Case: 18-13132 Date Filed: 03/08/2019 Page: 5 of 5
determined properly that the case was rendered moot and was subject to dismissal.
See Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities,
225 F.3d at 1217.
AFFIRMED. *
*
On appeal, Plaintiff also challenges the validity of the bankruptcy court’s order of discharge.
Because Plaintiff failed to appeal that order timely, we lack jurisdiction to consider that
argument. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1); In re Williams,
216 F.3d at 1298.
5
