Denny Hughes v. Jamestown Square LLC

Eleventh Circuit

Denny Hughes v. Jamestown Square LLC

356 F. App'x 300

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedDecember 11, 2009

Docket09-11676

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 356 F. App'x 300 (Denny Hughes v. Jamestown Square LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Denny Hughes v. Jamestown Square LLC, 356 F. App'x 300 (11th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

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 Ap-pellee’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. We agree.

Under 28 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 S.Ct. 400, 402, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (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.

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

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 Ap-pellee’s motion to dismiss, reasoning that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. We agree.

Under 28 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 S.Ct. 400, 402, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 F. App'x 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denny-hughes-v-jamestown-square-llc-ca11-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack