A&S Entertainment, LLC v. Florida Department of Revenue ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • USCA11 Case: 22-12048   Document: 29-1    Date Filed: 12/19/2022   Page: 1 of 6
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eleventh Circuit
    ____________________
    No. 22-12048
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ____________________
    In Re: A & S ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,
    d.b.a. The Office
    d.b.a. Club Pink Pussy Cat, Inc.,
    Debtor.
    ___________________________________________________
    A & S ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,
    d.b.a. The Office,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
    USCA11 Case: 22-12048     Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 12/19/2022    Page: 2 of 6
    2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12048
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ____________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-20919-BB
    ____________________
    Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    A & S Entertainment appeals an order dismissing as un-
    timely its appeal of bankruptcy orders establishing the amount and
    priority of a tax claim by the Florida Department of Revenue.
    A & S did not appeal those orders for over seven months until the
    bankruptcy court confirmed an amended reorganization plan.
    A & S argues that the orders establishing the priority status and
    amount of the tax claim by the Department were not final until the
    bankruptcy court confirmed the amended reorganization plan, so
    the appeal to the district court was timely. We disagree and affirm.
    In April 2021, A & S filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy
    under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Department sub-
    mitted a proof of claim for $2,366,000.84 for sales and use tax and
    alleged that $2,056,595.88 of the claim was entitled to priority. See
    
    11 U.S.C. § 507
    (a)(8)(C).
    USCA11 Case: 22-12048      Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 12/19/2022     Page: 3 of 6
    22-12048               Opinion of the Court                         3
    A & S objected. It agreed the Department was entitled to the
    full amount of its claim, but only as a general unsecured claim. Af-
    ter Florida responded, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on the
    objection. On June 18, 2021, the bankruptcy court entered a prior-
    ity order sustaining in part and overruling in part the objection by
    A & S. The bankruptcy court ruled that $1,880,110.31 of the claim
    was a priority claim and $485,890.53 was a general unsecured
    claim.
    A & S moved for reconsideration. On August 23, 2021, after
    holding another hearing, the bankruptcy court confirmed the pri-
    ority order. A & S did not immediately appeal.
    On September 20, 2021, A & S filed a plan of reorganization.
    The proposed plan stated, “All General Unsecured Creditors other
    than Class 2 Claim will share, pro-rata in a fund of money of
    $1,000.00 per month for 36 months Plus 15% of the savings, if any,
    from the Debtor’s appeal of the priority of the Class 1 creditor, [the
    Department], which will be more fully defined in a subsequent fil-
    ing.” On November 2, 2021, A & S amended the plan and removed
    the appeal language. On March 11, 2022, after holding a hearing,
    the bankruptcy court confirmed the amended reorganization plan
    and stated that all classes of creditors required to vote accepted the
    amended reorganization plan.
    On March 25, 2022, A & S filed a notice of appeal from the
    priority order, the reconsideration order, and the confirmation or-
    der “as to the Priority status of the State of Florida, Department of
    Revenue.” The Department moved to dismiss the notice of appeal
    USCA11 Case: 22-12048      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 12/19/2022     Page: 4 of 6
    4                       Opinion of the Court                 22-12048
    as untimely. The bankruptcy court denied the motion to dismiss
    without prejudice because it lacked the authority to decide
    whether an order was final for purposes of appeal. But it stated that,
    if it had that authority, it would grant the motion to dismiss.
    In the district court, the Department again moved to dismiss
    the appeal as untimely as to the priority and reconsideration orders.
    After A & S responded, the district court granted the motion and
    dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The district court ruled
    that the priority and reconsideration orders were final orders for
    purposes of appeal, so A & S was required to file a notice of appeal
    within 14 days after the reconsideration order was entered.
    Our jurisdiction to hear appeals extends only to “final” or-
    ders by a district court reviewing a decision by a bankruptcy court.
    
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (d). If the district court lacked jurisdiction due to an
    untimely appeal from a bankruptcy order, we will affirm the dis-
    missal by the district court. In re Williams, 
    216 F.3d 1295
    , 1298
    (11th Cir. 2000); see also Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC,
    
    140 S. Ct. 582
    , 592 (2020).
    Ordinarily, a final order “must end the litigation on the mer-
    its, leaving nothing to be done but execute the judgment.” In re
    Donovan, 
    532 F.3d 1134
    , 1136 (11th Cir. 2008). But in the bank-
    ruptcy context, “finality is given a more flexible interpretation.” 
    Id.
    A bankruptcy case “involves an aggregation of individual contro-
    versies, many of which would exist as stand-alone lawsuits but for
    the bankrupt status of the debtor.” Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 
    575 U.S. 496
    , 501 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). As a result,
    USCA11 Case: 22-12048      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 12/19/2022     Page: 5 of 6
    22-12048                Opinion of the Court                         5
    “Congress has long provided that orders in bankruptcy cases may
    be immediately appealed if they finally dispose of discrete disputes
    within the larger case.” 
    Id.
     (citation omitted).
    To be final and appealable, the bankruptcy order must
    “completely resolve all of the issues pertaining to a discrete claim,”
    leaving nothing more for the bankruptcy court to do but execute
    the judgment. In re Donovan, 
    532 F.3d at 1137
     (citation omitted).
    An order denying priority status to a creditor’s claim is “final” be-
    cause it resolves a discrete dispute within the bankruptcy proceed-
    ing. See Howard Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 
    547 U.S. 651
    , 657 n.3 (2006); In re Saco Loc. Dev. Corp., 
    711 F.2d 441
    ,
    448 (1st Cir. 1983) (majority opinion of Breyer, J.) (“[A]s long as an
    order allowing a claim or priority effectively settles the amount due
    the creditor, the order is ‘final’ even if the claim or priority may be
    reduced by other claims or priorities.”).
    To appeal a final bankruptcy order, a party must file a notice
    of appeal within 14 days after the entry of the order. Fed. R. Bankr.
    P. 8002(a); 
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (c)(2). When a party files a timely motion
    for reconsideration, the time to file a notice of appeal runs from the
    date of the entry of the order disposing of the motion. Fed. R.
    Bankr. P. 8002(b); 
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (c)(2).
    The district court did not err in dismissing the appeal be-
    cause the priority and reconsideration orders were final and imme-
    diately appealable orders. The objection by A & S to the priority
    claim by the Department initiated a dispute, which the bankruptcy
    court resolved by holding a hearing on the matter and ruling that
    USCA11 Case: 22-12048     Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 12/19/2022    Page: 6 of 6
    6                      Opinion of the Court               22-12048
    the Department had a valid priority claim. 
    11 U.S.C. § 507
    (a)(8)(C).
    After holding another hearing on reconsideration, the bankruptcy
    court confirmed the priority status and amount of the claim by the
    Department. These orders settled and disposed of a discrete dis-
    pute—what was owed to the Department—within the larger bank-
    ruptcy case. Bullard, 575 U.S. at 501; In re Donovan, 
    532 F.3d at 1137
    . And because the orders were final and appealable on August
    23, 2021, the March 25, 2022 notice of appeal by A & S was un-
    timely by over seven months. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a), (b); 
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (c)(2). We affirm the dismissal of the appeal as un-
    timely.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-12048

Filed Date: 12/19/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/19/2022