Court Opinion

ID: 9403015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 00:00:54.115763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:03.801228
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-11226         Document: 00516791685             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/19/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                        No. 22-11226
                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                   June 19, 2023
   Securities and Exchange Commission,                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Timothy Barton,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:22-CV-2118
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Defendant-Appellant Timothy Barton appeals the district court’s
   approval of the sale of receivership property (the “Sale Order”)—
   specifically, the sale of his home for the purpose of recouping Barton’s
   unlawful gains from defrauded investors. We dismiss this appeal for lack of
   jurisdiction. The Sale Order is not a final decision amenable to appellate
   review, and the collateral order doctrine is not applicable.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11226      Document: 00516791685           Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/19/2023

                                     No. 22-11226

          We have jurisdiction to review only a limited set of interlocutory
   appeals. Complaint of Ingram Towing Co., 59 F.3d 513, 515 (5th Cir. 1995)
   (“Interlocutory appellate jurisdiction is the exception rather than the rule.”).
   Congress has expressly set forth categories of receivership-related orders
   that may be appealed immediately. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2) (granting
   jurisdiction over appeals from “[i]nterlocutory orders appointing receivers,
   or refusing orders to wind up receiverships or to take steps to accomplish the
   purposes thereof, such as directing sales or other disposals of property”).
   The Sale Order is not for purposes of “winding up” the instant receivership;
   it was instead “entered in the normal course of a receivership.” Netsphere,
   Inc. v. Baron, 799 F.3d 327, 331-32 (5th Cir. 2015). Neither was the Sale Order
   issued in the context of a foreclosure, which is a final order amenable to
   appeal. See Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 645 F.2d 333, 337 (5th
   Cir. 1981).
          Barton contends that the collateral order doctrine applies here. We
   disagree. As the collateral order inquiry is premised on entire categories of
   orders, we consider generally the sale of real property in the ordinary course
   of a receivership. See Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 107
   (2009). Having weighed the relevant factors, we decline to permit appeals for
   such orders. Id. Indeed, Congress went out of its way to permit immediate
   appeals from a limited set of orders related to receiverships, including the
   appointment of a receiver in the first place. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2). As was
   the case here, the initial decision to place property under receivership was
   reviewed by the district court and reviewed again on appeal. The parties have
   engaged in vigorous motions practice below over what assets should be
   subject to the receivership in an effort to claw back illicit gains. The Sale
   Order came after all this review. It simply serves to ensure that the details of
   the sale are in the receivership’s best interest. Such administrative matters
   need not and should not be immediately appealable.

                                              2
Case: 22-11226   Document: 00516791685         Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/19/2023

                                No. 22-11226

         This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

                                         3