Wood v. Coordinated Care of Washington Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 31, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01960
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 In re QLIANCE MEDICAL GROUP OF 8 WASHINGTON, PC, NO. C19-1960MJP 9 Debtor. ____________________________________ 10 EDMUND J. WOOD, as Trustee for the 11 Estate, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL 12 Plaintiff/Appellee, 13 v. 14 COORDINATED CARE CORPORATION, 15 Defendant/Appellant. 16 17 18 This matter comes before the Court on Coordinated Care Corporation’s “Motion for 19 Leave to Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) and a Stay Pending Resolution of the Appeal.” 20 Dkt. # 1-2.1 In determining whether to grant leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), courts 21 “look for guidance to standards developed under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) . . . even though the 22 23 1 The motion for leave to appeal was ostensibly filed on behalf of both Coordinated Care 24 Corporation and Coordinated Care of Washington, Inc. The Trustee’s claims against the latter company were dismissed by the Bankruptcy Court on September 19, 2019, however, and the order on appeal runs 25 solely against Coordinated Care Corporation. See Wood v. Coordinated Care Corporation, et al., 26 Adversary Proceeding No. 19-1081CMA, Dkt. # 25 and # 34. To the extent Coordinated Care of Washington, Inc., seeks leave to appeal, the request is DENIED. 27 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 1 procedure is somewhat different.” In re Belli, 268 B.R. 851, 858 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001). Leave to 2 appeal in this context “should not be granted unless refusal would result in wasted litigation and 3 expense, the appeal involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial 4 ground for difference of opinion, and an immediate appeal would materially advance the 5 ultimate termination of the litigation.” In re NSB Film Corp., 167 B.R. 176, 180 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 6 7 1994). See also In re GACN, Inc., 555 B.R. 684, 692 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2016). 8 The undersigned recently amended the discharge order in Coordinated Care Corporation 9 v. Qliance Medical Group of Washington, PC, C17-1180MJP, on which Coordinated Care 10 Corporation’s appeal is based. In light of the amendment, there is no reasonable, much less 11 substantial, ground for disagreement with the bankruptcy court’s findings that the Adversary 12 Action is not barred by either the discharge order or the doctrine of res judicata. Leave to appeal 13 14 is therefore DENIED. 15 16 DATED this _31st_ day of _March_, 2020. 17 A 18 19 Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR