David H. Russell Family Ltd. Partnership, LLLP

S.D. Texas

David H. Russell Family Ltd. Partnership, LLLP

DecidedAugust 6, 2019

Docket4:19-cv-02235

StatusUnknown

This text of David H. Russell Family Ltd. Partnership, LLLP (David H. Russell Family Ltd. Partnership, LLLP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David H. Russell Family Ltd. Partnership, LLLP, (S.D. Tex. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT August 06, 2019 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: Stephen and David Dernick, § Debtors. § § DAVID H. RUSSELL FAMILY § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-19-2235 LTD. PARTNERSHIP, LLLP, § Appellant. § MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the Court on appeal from the June 5, 2019 award of attorneys’ fees as “fee shifting . . . per Rule 37” entered by United States Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez.1 Appellees Stephen and David Dernick filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal [Doc. 3], noting that the appeal was from an interlocutory order and was filed without complying with the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 8004(b). Appellant David H. Russell Family Ltd. Partnership, LLLP filed a Response [Doc. # 5], and Appellees filed a Reply [Doc. # 6].

The Bankruptcy Court’s Order assessing attorneys’ fees pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is an interlocutory order. See, e.g., In re Texas Bumper Exch., Inc., 333 B.R. 135, 138 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2005) (“The order from

which defendant seeks relief in this motion addressed a nondispositive discovery 1 In the June 5, 2019 ruling, Bankruptcy Judge Rodriguez ordered Appellees’ counsel to file a fee application. It does not appear that a fee application has yet been filed, or that Appellant has been ordered to pay a specific amount. P:\ORDERS\11-2019\2235MDAppeal.wpd 190806.1126 issue. It did not dispose of the merits of the litigation. It is thus an interlocutory order.”). “To permit an immediate appeal from such a sanctions order would

undermine the very purposes of Rule 37(a), which was designed to protect courts and opposing parties from delaying or harassing tactics during the discovery process.” Cunningham v. Hamilton Cty., Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 208 (1999). Accordingly, it is

hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Appeal [Doc. # 3] is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 6th day of August, 2019.

2 P:\ORDERS\11-2019\2235MDAppeal.wpd 190806.1126

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT August 06, 2019 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE: Stephen and David Dernick, § Debtors. § § DAVID H. RUSSELL FAMILY § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-19-2235 LTD. PARTNERSHIP, LLLP, § Appellant. § MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This case is before the Court on appeal from the June 5, 2019 award of attorneys’ fees as “fee shifting . . . per Rule 37” entered by United States Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez.1 Appellees Stephen and David Dernick filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal [Doc. 3], noting that the appeal was from an interlocutory order and was filed without complying with the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 8004(b). Appellant David H. Russell Family Ltd. Partnership, LLLP filed a Response [Doc. # 5], and Appellees filed a Reply [Doc. # 6].

The Bankruptcy Court’s Order assessing attorneys’ fees pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is an interlocutory order. See, e.g., In re Texas Bumper Exch., Inc., 333 B.R. 135, 138 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2005) (“The order from

which defendant seeks relief in this motion addressed a nondispositive discovery 1 In the June 5, 2019 ruling, Bankruptcy Judge Rodriguez ordered Appellees’ counsel to file a fee application. It does not appear that a fee application has yet been filed, or that Appellant has been ordered to pay a specific amount. P:\ORDERS\11-2019\2235MDAppeal.wpd 190806.1126 issue. It did not dispose of the merits of the litigation. It is thus an interlocutory order.”). “To permit an immediate appeal from such a sanctions order would

undermine the very purposes of Rule 37(a), which was designed to protect courts and opposing parties from delaying or harassing tactics during the discovery process.” Cunningham v. Hamilton Cty., Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 208 (1999). Accordingly, it is

hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Appeal [Doc. # 3] is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 6th day of August, 2019.

2 P:\ORDERS\11-2019\2235MDAppeal.wpd 190806.1126

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

David H. Russell Family Ltd. Partnership, LLLP, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-h-russell-family-ltd-partnership-lllp-txsd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack