Denny Hughes v. Jamestown Square LLC ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 11, 2009
No. 09-11676
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-60086-CV-ASG,
BKCY No. 08-12535-BKC-JK
IN RE:
DENNY HUGHES,
Debtor.
_______________________________________________
DENNY HUGHES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMESTOWN SQUARE LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(December 11, 2009)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Hughes appealed to the district court the bankruptcy court’s
dismissal without prejudice of Hughes’ Involuntary Petition in Bankruptcy Case
No. 08-12535-JKO (“Case 1") against Appellee Jamestown Square LLC. On the
same day, Hughes refiled his Involuntary Petition in Bankruptcy Case No. 08-
28319-JKO (“Case 2"). The district court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss,
reasoning that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. We agree.
Under 128 U.S.C. § 158, district courts have jurisdiction to hear bankruptcy
appeals from “final judgments, orders, and decrees.” 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). “As
with other types of cases, 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). The fact that Hughes
concurrently appealed the decision in Case 1 and refiled essentially the same
petition in Case 2 reveals that the bankruptcy court’s dismissal without prejudice
in Case 1 did not end the litigation on the merits.
Moreover, the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction in this case would
violate the general prohibition against two courts entertaining duplicative
litigation. Cf. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103
2
S. Ct. 400, 402 (1982). This prohibition is meant to “promote judicial economy
and avoid the confusion and inefficiency that might flow from putting the same
issue before two courts at the same time.” Cf. 20-303 Moore's Federal Practice:
Civil § 303.32 [1] (3d ed. 2009); Shewchun v. United States, 797 F.2d 941, 943
(11th Cir. 1986) (noting that the prohibition against a district court exercising
jurisdiction over a case properly before the court of appeals prevents parties from
“fight[ing] a ‘two front war’ for no good reason”).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this
case.
AFFIRMED.1
1
Appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.
3