Deighan Law LLC v. Harrington

W.D. New York

Deighan Law LLC v. Harrington

DecidedFebruary 4, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-01143

StatusUnknown

This text of Deighan Law LLC v. Harrington (Deighan Law LLC v. Harrington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Deighan Law LLC v. Harrington, (W.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

TES DIST, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EE sth FILED US WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK » Px FEB 4 2021 DEIGHAN LAW LLC, Map vesrs LOEWENGUTA of wh Appellant, RN DistRICl

v. 20-cv-1143 (JLS) WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON, 20-cv-1144 (JLS) Appellee.

ORDER In two separate but substantially similar matters,’ Appellant Deighan Law LLC—which, according to Appellant, is generally known as UpRight Law or UpRight Law LLC—seeks interlocutory review of the bankruptcy court's order granting the United States Trustee’s motion to compel UpRight to respond to interrogatories. See Case No. 20-cv-1148; Case No. 20-cv-1144. The Court has studied and considered the parties’ arguments regarding UpRight’s motion for leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Dkts. 1,5, 8. On these facts, the Court declines to grant such leave. See In re Kassover, 343 F.3d 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2003) (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), district courts have discretionary appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order of a bankruptcy court); see also In re Cornerstone Homes, Inc., Nos. 17-CV-6115-FPG, 17-CV-6116- FPG, 2017 WL 1370999, at *1-*2 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2017) (denying leave to appeal

| Although the matters are not joined or consolidated, the parties used virtually the same briefs in both matters. This Order applies to both matters. CM/ECF references are applicable to both matters.

after applying the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and concluding that appellants failed to identify “exceptional circumstances’ to “justify departing from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final judgment”). The motions for leave to appeal are denied. Dkt. 1. The motions fora “limited order staying enforcement” of the bankruptcy court’s August 7, 2020 Order are denied as moot. Dkt. 9. The Clerk of Court shall close these matters.

SO ORDERED. Dated: February 4, 2021 Buffalo, New York

4, Afr vad JOHN L. SINATRA, JR — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

TES DIST, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EE sth FILED US WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK » Px FEB 4 2021 DEIGHAN LAW LLC, Map vesrs LOEWENGUTA of wh Appellant, RN DistRICl

v. 20-cv-1143 (JLS) WILLIAM K. HARRINGTON, 20-cv-1144 (JLS) Appellee.

ORDER In two separate but substantially similar matters,’ Appellant Deighan Law LLC—which, according to Appellant, is generally known as UpRight Law or UpRight Law LLC—seeks interlocutory review of the bankruptcy court's order granting the United States Trustee’s motion to compel UpRight to respond to interrogatories. See Case No. 20-cv-1148; Case No. 20-cv-1144. The Court has studied and considered the parties’ arguments regarding UpRight’s motion for leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal. Dkts. 1,5, 8. On these facts, the Court declines to grant such leave. See In re Kassover, 343 F.3d 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2003) (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), district courts have discretionary appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order of a bankruptcy court); see also In re Cornerstone Homes, Inc., Nos. 17-CV-6115-FPG, 17-CV-6116- FPG, 2017 WL 1370999, at *1-*2 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2017) (denying leave to appeal

| Although the matters are not joined or consolidated, the parties used virtually the same briefs in both matters. This Order applies to both matters. CM/ECF references are applicable to both matters.

after applying the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and concluding that appellants failed to identify “exceptional circumstances’ to “justify departing from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final judgment”). The motions for leave to appeal are denied. Dkt. 1. The motions fora “limited order staying enforcement” of the bankruptcy court’s August 7, 2020 Order are denied as moot. Dkt. 9. The Clerk of Court shall close these matters.

SO ORDERED. Dated: February 4, 2021 Buffalo, New York

4, Afr vad JOHN L. SINATRA, JR — UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Deighan Law LLC v. Harrington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deighan-law-llc-v-harrington-nywd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack