Order from Judge Lindsay Overturning Jeff Baron CH 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JEFFREY BARON, §
§
Appellant,  §
§
v.  §  Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-1746-L
§
SIDNEY BENNETT CHESNIN, et al., §
§
Appellees.  §
ORDER
Before the court is Appellant’s Rule 8003(c) Motion for Relief (Doc. 2), filed May 20, 2013;
Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief (Doc. 3), filed May 21, 2013;
and Appellant’s Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal of Order Granting Petitioning Creditors
Partial Summary Judgment, Order for Relief, and Order Appointing Interim Trustee (Doc. 4), filed
August 5, 2013.  In his Rule 8003(c) motion, Appellant Jeffrey Baron (“Appellant” or “Baron”)
requests leave from the court to consider this interlocutory appeal from the involuntary bankruptcy
proceeding initiated by attorneys who performed legal services on his behalf.  
Interlocutory appeals are not favored because they interfere with the overriding goal of the
bankruptcy system and the expeditious resolution of pressing economic difficulties. In re Hunt Int’l
Res. Corp., 57 B.R. 371, 372 (N.D. Tex. 1985).  As a result, leave for an interlocutory appeal is
granted only in exceptional circumstances that justify overriding the general policy of not allowing
such appeals.  Id.  Section 158(a)(3) does not set forth a standard for determining whether to grant
leave to appeal an interlocutory order from a bankruptcy court, but many district courts have adopted
the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Ichinose v. Homer National Bank, 946 F.2d 1169, 1177 (5th
Order - Page 1
Case 3:13-cv-01746-L   Document 8   Filed 08/06/13    Page 1 of 3   PageID 467

Cir.  1991).    To  be  appealable  under  this  standard,  an  interlocutory  order  must:  (1)  involve  a
controlling issue of law; (2) present a question upon which there is substantial ground for difference
of  opinion;  and  (3)  an  immediate  appeal  of  this  order  must  materially  advance  the  ultimate
termination of the litigation.  Id.
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8003(c) states that a motion for leave must contain
“a copy of the judgment, order, or decree complained of and of any opinion or memorandum relating
thereto.”  The only bankruptcy order attached to Baron’s Rule 8003(c) motion is an April 5, 2013
order denying a motion by  Baron to dismiss the involuntary bankruptcy proceeding  for lack of
jurisdiction.    Baron’s  motion  for  leave,  however,  appears  to  complain  generally  regarding  the
propriety of the involuntary bankruptcy proceeding.  
Specifically, Baron contends in his rule 8003(c) motion that the involuntary bankruptcy
proceeding violates the Fifth Circuit’s order as to the receivership created by the district court. 
Baron contends that his creditors should not be allowed to run to the bankruptcy court for relief to
avoid an unfavorable ruling by the Fifth Circuit.  According to Baron, “[t]he Bankruptcy Court has
taken jurisdiction to attempt enforcement of the order [by the district court] directing the receiver
to pay the lawyer claimants, as if the District Court did not stay the order and as if [the] Court of
Appeals had never handed down its decision reversing the receivership.”  Appellant’s Rule 8003(c)
Mot. 9.  Baron further asserts that his creditors lack standing to bring the involuntary bankruptcy
because an  involuntary bankruptcy  cannot  be  imposed to  collect  disputed  claims  for  which  no
judgment has been obtained.  Appellees have not responded to Baron’s Rule 8003(c) motion for
leave.
Order - Page 2
Case 3:13-cv-01746-L   Document 8   Filed 08/06/13    Page 2 of 3   PageID 468

After careful consideration of the motion for leave, the court concludes that Appellant’s Rule
8003(c) Motion for Relief (Doc. 2) should be and is hereby denied.  Baron appears to seek leave to
appeal matters unrelated to the jurisdictional order and for which no order has been entered by the
bankruptcy court or attached to the motion for leave.  Further, the court concludes that Baron’s
request to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
does not satisfy all of the requirements for interlocutory appeals under section 1292(b) and does not
present  exceptional  circumstances  that  justify  overriding  the  general  policy  of  not  allowing
interlocutory appeals of bankruptcy court orders. In light of the court’s determination that Baron’s
motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal should be denied, the court denies as moot his
Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief (Doc. 3) and Emergency Motion for Stay
Pending Appeal  of  Order Granting Petitioning Creditors Partial Summary Judgment,  Order for
Relief, and Order Appointing Interim Trustee (Doc. 4).  In light of the court’s decision denying the
motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal, the purported appeal filed by Baron on May 7, 2013,
is hereby dismissed.
It is so ordered this 6th day of August, 2013.
_______________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Order - Page 3
Case 3:13-cv-01746-L   Document 8   Filed 08/06/13    Page 3 of 3   PageID 469