Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-2424 Section "R", Bankruptcy Case No. 99-13370 "A".
October 11, 2000.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the motion of Mapco Petroleum, Inc. ("Mapco") to appeal the bankruptcy court's interlocutory order denying Mapco's motion to withdrawal its claim, and denying Mapco's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to abstain from hearing Efficient Solutions' adversary proceeding. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion.
I. DISCUSSION
The jurisdiction of this Court over an appeal from a bankruptcy court's order is established in 28 U.S.C. § 158 (a). This section provides that a district court has jurisdiction "to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees, and with leave of the court, from interlocutory orders and decrees, of bankruptcy judges entered in cases and proceedings referred to the bankruptcy judges under section 157 of . . . title [28]." 28 U.S.C. § 158 (a). In determining whether to enter an interlocutory appeal, the majority of district courts in this circuit have applied the following standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b): (1) a controlling issue of law must be present; (2) the question must be one where there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (3) an immediate appeal must materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. See Matter of Ichinose, 946 F.2d 1169, 1177 (5th Cir. 1991); see also In re Carden, 1997 WL 361898 (E.D. La. 1997). A court should grant an interlocutory appeal if a denial would result in wasted litigation and expense. See In re NSB Film Corp., 167 B.R. 176, 180 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 1994). However, piecemeal appeals that serve only to extend the litigation are discouraged, especially when weighed against the interests of judicial economy and interests of the parties in obtaining an overall conclusion of the proceeding. See Babin v. Hattier, 1994 WL 43810 (E.D. La. 1994). Thus, courts will hear an interlocutory appeal only under circumstances that justify overriding the general policy of not allowing such appeals. See Powers v. Montgomery, 1998 WL 159944 (N.D. Tex. 1998); see also Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Anchille Lauro, 921 F.2d 21, 25 (2d Cir. 1990)
As with interlocutory appeals from district courts, bankruptcy interlocutory appeals are generally not favored, because they disrupt the bankruptcy proceedings. See In re Cross, 666 F.2d 873, 878 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982); In re Executive Officer Centers, Inc., 75 B.R. 60 (E.D. La. 1987). In order for the court to hear such an appeal, the would-be appellant party must present a precise statement of the controlling issue of law, in conjunction with a "brief argument showing the grounds for the asserted difference of opinion and the way in which the allowance of the petition would `materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation'". See Clark-Dietz and Associates-Eng'r v. Basic Constr. Comp., 702 F.2d 67, 69 (5th Cir. 1983) ( quoting In re Heddendorf, 263 F.2d 887, 889 (1st Cir. 1959)).
Mapco has failed to meet its burden to obtain an interlocutory appeal. Indeed, it does not even address the interlocutory appeal standard. Mapco has asserted five different grounds for interlocutory judicial review of the bankruptcy court's ruling. It has identified no controlling issue of law on which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; nor has it explained how allowing the appeal would materially advance the termination of the litigation. Mapco has done no more that present its disagreement with the bankruptcy court. "Difference of opinion" under Section 1292(b)refers to an unsettled state of law or judicial opinion, not mere discontent by the appealing party. See In re Harken, 1999 WL 64955 (E.D. La. 1999).
Accordingly, the motion for leave to appeal is DENIED.