Carroll vs Robert F.Craig et.al
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN IN RE: INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION CORPORATION, Debtor. JAMES P. CARROLL, LIQUIDATION TRUSTEE OF THE LIQUIDATION TRUST FOR THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATES OF INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION COMPANY, LLC, EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT F. CRAIG, P.C., and PETER WEISMAN ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Bankruptcy No. 3:07-30012 Adv. No. 3:09-03070 Adv. No. 3:09-03089 Civil No. 2014-35 ATTORNEYS: Benjamin A. Currence, Esq. Law Offices of Benjamin A. Currence St. Thomas, VI Gary D. Underdahl, Esq. Joseph Steinfeld, Jr., Esq. ASK LLP St. Paul, MN For James P. Carroll, Liquidation Trustee. Jeffrey B. Moorehead, Esq. Jeffrey B.C. Moorehead, Esq. Jeffrey B.C. Moorehead, P.C. St. Croix, VI For the defendants. Case: 3:14-cv-00035-CVG-RM Document #: 12 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 4 Carroll v. Craig, et al. Civil No. 2014-35 Order ORDER GÓMEZ, J. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_14-cv-00035/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_14-cv-00035-0.pdf
SHA-256 d14c22257aa7baba61852967a86aec89fb1c55c0824153b2b938b4d1bac1dc13
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-d14c22257aa7
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN IN RE: INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION CORPORATION, Debtor. JAMES P. CARROLL, LIQUIDATION TRUSTEE OF THE LIQUIDATION TRUST FOR THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATES OF INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION COMPANY, LLC, EMERGING COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT F. CRAIG, P.C., and PETER WEISMAN ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Bankruptcy No. 3:07-30012 Adv. No. 3:09-03070 Adv. No. 3:09-03089 Civil No. 2014-35 ATTORNEYS: Benjamin A. Currence, Esq. Law Offices of Benjamin A. Currence St. Thomas, VI Gary D. Underdahl, Esq. Joseph Steinfeld, Jr., Esq. ASK LLP St. Paul, MN For James P. Carroll, Liquidation Trustee. Jeffrey B. Moorehead, Esq. Jeffrey B.C. Moorehead, Esq. Jeffrey B.C. Moorehead, P.C. St. Croix, VI For the defendants. Case: 3:14-cv-00035-CVG-RM Document #: 12 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 4 Carroll v. Craig, et al. Civil No. 2014-35 Order ORDER GÓMEZ, J. Before the Court is the motion of defendant Peter Weisman (“Weisman”) for leave to appeal an interlocutory order rendered by the bankruptcy division of this Court (the “Bankruptcy Division”).1 [T]he vast majority of district courts faced with the problem have adopted the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for interlocutory appeals from district court orders. This standard consists of three elements: (1) a controlling issue of law must be involved; (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. Matter of Ichinose, 946 F.2d 1169, 1177 (5th Cir. 1991). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, “the appellant still has the burden of persuading the court of appeals that exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475 (1978). Bankruptcy proceedings are also governed both by the federal rules and by this Court’s Local Bankruptcy Rules. In 1 The defendant originally was joined by three other defendants, Prosser & Campbell, P.C. (“Prosser”), Robert F. Craig P.C. (“Craig”), and Raynor, Rensch & Pfeiffer (“Raynor”). Prosser, Craig, and Raynor have filed notices or motions to withdraw their motions for leave to appeal. Case: 3:14-cv-00035-CVG-RM Document #: 12 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 2 of 4 Carroll v. Craig, et al. Civil No. 2014-35 Order this Court’s Local Bankruptcy Rules, it states in pertinent part, that, “[t]he moving party may file a brief . . . as an attachment to the motion and the respondent may file a brief . . . as attachments to the response. Briefs shall be limited to twenty (20) pages.” LBR 7008-1(C). In this instance, Weisman has filed a motion which incorporates by reference many dozens or perhaps hundreds of pages filed in other adversary proceedings in the Bankruptcy Division and in this Court. This does not comply with the spirit of the twenty page rule. Furthermore, such a filing makes it impossible for the Court to determine if the extraordinary circumstances which would counsel an interlocutory appeal attend in this case. Rather than meeting Weisman’s burden of showing the Court that such circumstances exist, Weisman asks, in essence, that this Court hunt through dozens or perhaps hundreds of pages in order to craft his arguments for him. Neither the standard for interlocutory appeals, 28 U.S.C. § 1292, nor this Court’s local rules support granting leave to appeal in these circumstances. The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that Weisman’s motion for leave to appeal is DENIED; and it is further Case: 3:14-cv-00035-CVG-RM Document #: 12 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 3 of 4 Carroll v. Craig, et al. Civil No. 2014-35 Order ORDERED that the motion of defendant Prosser to withdraw its motion for leave to appeal is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that all other pending motions are DENIED without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. S\ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge Case: 3:14-cv-00035-CVG-RM Document #: 12 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 4 of 4