Court Opinion

ID: 9908142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 20:01:25.519219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:56.123186
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12869   Document: 29-1    Date Filed: 12/07/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-12869
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       In Re: BENJAMIN HARRIS YORMAK,
                                                              Debtor.
       ________________________________________________
       STEVEN ROBERT YORMAK,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       BENJAMIN HARRIS YORMAK,

                                                 Defendant-Appellee.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-12869      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 12/07/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  23-12869

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                      D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-00450-JES,
                         Bkcy No. 2:15-bk-04241-FMD
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Steven Yormak, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals from
       the district court’s August 16, 2023, order declining to exercise ju-
       risdiction over and dismissing an appeal from an interlocutory
       bankruptcy court order. The bankruptcy court order, also entered
       in 2023, denied a motion for an order that Benjamin Yormak be
       deposed a second time and a motion that earlier discovery orders,
       issued in 2018, be rescinded.
              A jurisdictional question (“JQ”) asked the parties to address
       the nature of our jurisdiction over this appeal. Upon review of the
       parties’ responses to the JQ and the record, we DISMISS this appeal
       for lack of jurisdiction.
                The district court’s order is not final and appealable because
       the bankruptcy court order was a discovery decision and left unre-
       solved Steven Yormak’s claim against Benjamin Yormak in the
       bankruptcy proceedings. See Mich. State Univ. v. Asbestos Settlement
       Tr. (In re Celotex Corp.), 700 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012); Matter
       of Int'l Horizons, Inc., 689 F.2d 996, 1000-01 (11th Cir. 1982). Nor is
       the district court order immediately appealable under the collateral
USCA11 Case: 23-12869      Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 12/07/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-12869               Opinion of the Court                          3

       order doctrine, the practical finality doctrine, or the marginal final-
       ity doctrine. See Lockwood v. Snookies, Inc. (In re F.D.R. Hickory
       House, Inc.), 60 F.3d 724, 726‑25 (11th Cir. 1995); Growth Realty Cos.
       v. Regency Woods Apartments (In re Regency Woods Apartments, Ltd.),
       686 F.2d 899, 902 (11th Cir. 1982); Gillespie v. U.S. Steel Corp., 379
       U.S. 148, 152-54 (1964); Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463,
       477 n.30 (1978), superseded by rule on other grounds as stated in Mi-
       crosoft Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702 (2017). Finally, the bankruptcy
       court’s order, which the parties agree was not an explicit injunc-
       tion, is not immediately appealable as an injunctive order. The re-
       fusal to order Benjamin Yormak to sit for another deposition and
       to rescind discovery orders issued five years earlier did not have
       serious, perhaps irreparable consequence, and that ruling can be
       effectively challenged after the bankruptcy proceedings have con-
       cluded. See Positano Place at Naples I Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Empire In-
       dem. Ins. Co., 84 F.4th 1241, 1250-53 (11th Cir. 2023).