UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

In re: CONRAD CARMONA SR.,

v.

Debtor,

____________________________________/ 

Case Number 09-11739-BC (Appeal)

LINDA MORRISON, and VANESSA Case Number 09-11815-BC (Cross-Appeal)

GOMEZ, Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Bankruptcy Case Number 08-20783

Adversary Proceeding Number 08-02075

CONRAD CARMONA SR.,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

____________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING APPELLANTS MORRISON AND GOMEZ’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO APPEAL AND GRANTING CROSS-APPELLANT CARMONA’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO CROSS-APPEAL

This matter is before the Court on cross-motions to appeal an interlocutory order issued by

United States Bankruptcy Judge Daniel S. Opperman in an adversary proceeding. On April 23,

2009, Judge Opperman denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, which raised the

issue of whether debt owed by Cross-Appellant Conrad Carmona Sr. (“Carmona”) to Appellants

Linda Morrison and Vanessa Gomez (“Morrison” and “Gomez”), pursuant to state-court judgments

for $10,000 each, are non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. § 532(a)(6) (providing that

debt “for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another

entity” is not dischargeable). As framed in the parties’ cross-motions for leave to appeal, if leave

is granted, this Court will determine the res judicata or collateral estoppel effect, if any, of a

judgment entered pursuant to Michigan’s case evaluation procedure, Mich. Ct. R. 2.403.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3), district courts have jurisdiction to hear bankruptcy appeals

1:09-cv-11815-TLL-CEB Doc # 4 Filed 07/14/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 53
-2-

“with leave of the court, from interlocutory orders and decrees.” The statutory scheme does not

explicitly articulate a standard for determining whether leave should be granted. However,

subsection (c)(2) provides that an appeal “shall be taken in the same manner as appeals in civil

proceedings generally taken to the courts of appeals from the district courts.” Id. § 158(c)(2). Thus,

for guidance, courts have looked to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which provides that an appeal may be

taken from an interlocutory order where the order involves “a controlling question of law as to

which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and . . . an immediate appeal from the

order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”

On this basis, leave to file an appeal and cross-appeal will be granted in this matter. The

parties shall commence preparation of the record in compliance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy

Procedure 8006. Upon receipt of the record, a briefing schedule will issue.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Appellants Morrison and Gomez’s motion for leave to

appeal [09-11739, Dkt. # 1] is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that Cross-Appellant Carmona’s motion for leave to cross-appeal

[09-11815, Dkt. # 1] is GRANTED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: July 14, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on July 14, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-11815-TLL-CEB Doc # 4 Filed 07/14/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 54