From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sharp v. SSC Farms 1, LLC (In re SK Foods, L.P.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 12, 2012
CIV. NO. S-12-0775 LKK (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012)

Opinion

CIV. NO. S-12-0775 LKK

04-12-2012

In re: SK FOODS, L.P., a California limited partnership, et al., Debtors. BRADLEY D. SHARP, Chapter 11 Trustee, Appellant, v. SSC FARMS 1, LLC, et al., Appellees.


ORDER

On March 23, 2012, Cary Collins and his accounting firm, Collins and Associates (collectively, "appellants" or "Collins appellants") filed this appeal from the adversary proceeding below, Sharp v. SSC Farms, I (In re SK Foods, L.P.), Bankr. 9-2692. On March 28, 2012, appellants sought from this court an emergency stay pending their appeal of what they say is a final ruling of the Bankruptcy Court. Appellants assert that absent the stay, they will be subject to a $1,000 per day fine imposed by a separate contempt order issued by the Bankruptcy Court. There are numerous procedural flaws in this appeal and emergency motion that render this court unable to decipher what appellants want, or how the relief they seem to want could afford them any relief.

1. Appellants purport to appeal from a March 21, 2012 "Tentative ruling" of the Bankruptcy Court. See Dkt. No. 1 at p.34. (That order, in turn, denied appellant's motion to reconsider its February 1, 2012 order compelling their production of documents.) Appellants may appeal as of right only from a "final" judgment, order or decree of the Bankruptcy Court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

"p. ___" refers to the page number assigned by the CM/ECF system.

Interlocutory appeals are permitted, but only with leave of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). Appellants have not sought leave to file an interlocutory appeal.

2. Appellants seem to want "emergency" relief from the Bankruptcy Court's contempt order, yet they do not seek a stay of that order. Instead they seek a stay of a tentative ruling denying a motion for reconsideration. Appellants do not explain how ruling on this motion will grant them any relief.

Appellants have separately appealed the contempt order. See Collins v. SSC Farms I, LLC (In re SK Foods, L.P.), Civ. No. 2:12-cv-655 LKK. However, appellants have not moved to stay that orde An appeal of the contempt order has also been filed by SSC Farming, LLC. SSC Farms I, LLC v. Sharp (In re SK Foods, L.P.), Civ. No. 2:12-cv-894 LKK.
--------

3. Appellants seem to believe that if they can overturn the Bankruptcy Court's February 1, 2012 order (compelling production of documents), they will no longer be subject to that court's $1,000 per day fine. However, the Bankruptcy Court's contempt order fines them for violating its November 16, 2011 stipulation and order (in addition to violating the February 1st order). See Bankr. Dkt. No. 666 ¶¶ 1-2. Appellants do not explain how granting them the relief they seek will purge this separate contempt (and if it is not a separate contempt, appellants do not explain why not).

4. Appellants seek an emergency stay pending appeal, but they do not disclose that their request for a stay has already been denied by the Bankruptcy Court, nor explain why, in their view, that decision was in error.

Accordingly, it is ordered that:

1. Appellants' emergency application (Dkt. No.4) is DENIED and the April 18, 2012 hearing date is VACATED;

2. Appellants shall, within seven (7) days of the date of this order, amend their Notice of Dismissal to reflect that they are appealing a final order of the Bankruptcy Court. If appellants fail to do so, the Clerk of the Court is directed to DISMISS this appeal, and all stays issued by this court are VACATED, without further order of this court.

3. If appellants wish to renew their request for a stay pending appeal, they may do so by filing a noticed motion for such relief no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this order for the earliest available hearing date;

4. Any renewed request shall comply with the local rules of the district court, including Local Rule 230, and the Bankruptcy Rules governing requests for stays on appeal;

5. This court's temporary stay (Dkt. No. 8), and any continuance thereof, is VACATED;

6. The bankruptcy court's order or orders imposing a $1,000 per day fine on appellants is temporarily STAYED until further order of this court. If appellants do not file a timely renewal of their request, this temporary stay is VACATED without further order of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

Sharp v. SSC Farms 1, LLC (In re SK Foods, L.P.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 12, 2012
CIV. NO. S-12-0775 LKK (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012)
Case details for

Sharp v. SSC Farms 1, LLC (In re SK Foods, L.P.)

Case Details

Full title:In re: SK FOODS, L.P., a California limited partnership, et al., Debtors…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 12, 2012

Citations

CIV. NO. S-12-0775 LKK (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2012)