Court Opinion

ID: 9962507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:00:46.457317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:30.586718
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13172   Document: 24-1    Date Filed: 04/23/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-13172
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       In re: SEAWALK INVESTMENTS, LLC
                                                              Debtor.
       _______________________________________________

       SKY ENTERPRISES, LLC,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SEAWALK INVESTMENTS, LLC,

                                                 Defendant-Appellee.
USCA11 Case: 23-13172     Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 04/23/2024    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-13172

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                      D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-01148-TJC
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Sky Enterprises, LLC (“Sky”) appeals from the district
       court’s August 29, 2023 order, which affirmed several bankruptcy
       court rulings but remanded for further consideration of the
       amount of attorney’s fees to which Sky is entitled as part of its se-
       cured claim. We asked the parties to address whether we have ju-
       risdiction to review that order. Upon our review of the record and
       the response to our jurisdictional question, this appeal is
       DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
              We conclude that the pending attorney’s fees issue is not
       collateral to the underlying bankruptcy dispute and is instead inter-
       twined with the merits. The bankruptcy court did not award at-
       torney’s fees to Sky as a sanction; instead, Sky’s entitlement to at-
       torney’s fees arises from the mortgage and promissory note that
       formed the basis of its secured claim. A change in the attorney’s
       fees amount will thus affect the value of the claim, which was an
       essential merits issue resolved by the bankruptcy court.
              Accordingly, the district court’s August 29, 2023 order did
       not “[end] the litigation on the merits and [leave] nothing for the
USCA11 Case: 23-13172      Document: 24-1     Date Filed: 04/23/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-13172               Opinion of the Court                         3

       court to do but execute the judgment.” See Mich. State Univ. v. As-
       bestos Settlement Tr. (In re Celotex Corp.), 700 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th
       Cir. 2012). Nor did the order leave only a “ministerial duty collat-
       eral to the merits of the action” for the bankruptcy court to per-
       form on remand. See Miscott Corp. v. Zaremba Walden Co. (In re Mis-
       cott Corp.), 848 F.2d 1190, 1193 (11th Cir. 1988). We thus lack juris-
       diction to consider this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1).