Steven Robert Yormak v. Benjamin Harris Yormak

USCA11 Case: 23-12869 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-12869
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
In Re: BENJAMIN HARRIS YORMAK,
Debtor.
________________________________________________
STEVEN ROBERT YORMAK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BENJAMIN HARRIS YORMAK,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12869 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-12869
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-00450-JES,
Bkcy No. 2:15-bk-04241-FMD
____________________
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Yormak, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals from
the district court’s August 16, 2023, order declining to exercise ju-
risdiction over and dismissing an appeal from an interlocutory
bankruptcy court order. The bankruptcy court order, also entered
in 2023, denied a motion for an order that Benjamin Yormak be
deposed a second time and a motion that earlier discovery orders,
issued in 2018, be rescinded.
A jurisdictional question (“JQ”) asked the parties to address
the nature of our jurisdiction over this appeal. Upon review of the
parties’ responses to the JQ and the record, we DISMISS this appeal
for lack of jurisdiction.
The district court’s order is not final and appealable because
the bankruptcy court order was a discovery decision and left unre-
solved Steven Yormak’s claim against Benjamin Yormak in the
bankruptcy proceedings. See Mich. State Univ. v. Asbestos Settlement
Tr. (In re Celotex Corp.), 700 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012); Matter
of Int'l Horizons, Inc., 689 F.2d 996, 1000-01 (11th Cir. 1982). Nor is
the district court order immediately appealable under the collateral
USCA11 Case: 23-12869 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 12/07/2023 Page: 3 of 3
23-12869 Opinion of the Court 3
order doctrine, the practical finality doctrine, or the marginal final-
ity doctrine. See Lockwood v. Snookies, Inc. (In re F.D.R. Hickory
House, Inc.), 60 F.3d 724, 726‑25 (11th Cir. 1995); Growth Realty Cos.
v. Regency Woods Apartments (In re Regency Woods Apartments, Ltd.),
686 F.2d 899, 902 (11th Cir. 1982); Gillespie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 379
U.S. 148, 152-54 (1964); Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463,
477 n.30 (1978), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in Mi-
crosoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017). Finally, the bankruptcy
court’s order, which the parties agree was not an explicit injunc-
tion, is not immediately appealable as an injunctive order. The re-
fusal to order Benjamin Yormak to sit for another deposition and
to rescind discovery orders issued five years earlier did not have
serious, perhaps irreparable consequence, and that ruling can be
effectively challenged after the bankruptcy proceedings have con-
cluded. See Positano Place at Naples I Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Empire In-
dem. Ins. Co., 84 F.4th 1241, 1250-53 (11th Cir. 2023).