Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismisses an appeal from a bankruptcy court order authorizing the Chapter 7 trustee to retain Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP as special litigation counsel. The court holds that the retention order is interlocutory, is not appealable under the collateral-order doctrine, and does not warrant leave for interlocutory appeal. The appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Holdings
- Orders appointing counsel under the Bankruptcy Code are interlocutory and are not generally considered final and appealable.
- The collateral-order doctrine does not apply to orders retaining special litigation counsel because such orders are not completely separate from the merits and are effectively reviewable after final judgment.
- Leave to appeal is denied because it would not materially advance the termination of the litigation.
Questions Presented
- Whether bankruptcy court's order retaining special litigation counsel is a final, appealable order
- Whether the collateral-order doctrine applies to make the retention order immediately appealable
- Whether leave to appeal an interlocutory retention order should be granted
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (26)
- In re Delta Servs. Indus., 782 F.2d 1267 (5th Cir. 1986)(followed)
- In re Smyth, 207 F.3d 758 (5th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- In re Pericone, 319 F. App'x 325 (5th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- In re Tullius, 500 F. App'x 286 (5th Cir. 2012)(cited)
- In re Kizzee-Jordan, 626 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 2010)(cited)
- In re Westwood Shake & Shingle, Inc., 971 F.2d 387 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949)(cited)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009)(cited)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006)(cited)
- Martin v. Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2010)(cited)
Showing top 10 of 26.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…