In Re: Kwok
| Luc A. Despins |
| G Club Operations LLC'S |
| Ho Wan Kwok |
| US Trustee |
| 3:2023mc00106 |
| November 16, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 22, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 NOTICE of Appearance by Nicholas Bassett on behalf of Luc A. Despins (Bassett, Nicholas) |
| Filing 13 NOTICE of Appearance by Avram E Luft on behalf of Luc A. Despins (Luft, Avram) |
Filing 12
ORDER denying #1 Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Appeal; denying #9 Renewed Motion to Stay Pending Appeal. Movant G Club Operations LLC seeks a stay pending appeal of the Bankruptcy Court's Order requiring production of G-Club documents. The Order arises out of the Bankruptcy Courts approval of a settlement between the Chapter 11 Trustee and the Assignee of the HCHK entities. Filed at 3:39PM on November 16, 2023, Movant requested a decision from this Court by 2:00PM today, November 17, 2023. "The decision as to whether to issue a stay of an order pending appeal lies within the sound discretion of the district court." In re BGI, Inc., 504 B.R. 754, 762 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). "A party seeking a stay pending appeal carries a heavy burden." In re Barretta, 560 B.R. 630, 632 (D. Conn. 2016) (quoting In re Adelphia Commc'ns Corp., 333 B.R. 649, 659 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)). The Court considers the following four factors in deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Id. at 632 (citing In re World Trade Ctr. Disaster Site Litig., 503 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007)). The first two considerations "are the most critical"; the movant must show more than mere possibilities of both likely success and irreparable injury. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009).Upon consideration of these four factors, the Court concludes that Movant has not met its heavy burden of establishing that it is entitled to the relief it seeks. First, as to likelihood of success on the merits, Movant simply repackages the same arguments it made to the Bankruptcy Court and summarily concludes that therefore the Bankruptcy Court erred. Movant fails to address the legal basis and reasoning by which the Bankruptcy Court rejected these arguments and actually based its order. Nor does the Movant offer any meaningful basis to challenge the Bankruptcy Court's factual findings. Again, Movant merely asserts that the Bankruptcy Court got the facts wrong as well, without pointing to any specific portion of the Bankruptcy record that would support such an assertion. "Restating the arguments again does not imbue them with any more merit, any more substance, or any more of a likelihood [it] will succeed on the merits in an appeal." United States v. Navarro, No. 22-2292 (CKK), 2023 WL 2663014, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2023); see also Carroll v. Trump, 2023 WL 5312894, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2023). Accordingly, Movant has not met its burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on appeal. Second, Movant has not shown that it will suffer irreparable harm. This argument appears limited to that portion of the Order which would require the production of privileged communications and does not appear to be made with respect to the remaining documents. The Court concludes that the Movant has not demonstrated irreparable harm. First, Movant has not demonstrated (or even attempted to do so) the applicability of the privilege to the documents at issue. See United States v. Navarro, 2023 WL 2663014, at *5 (party did not demonstrate irreparable injury where he "made no showing whatsoever that he has a right against self-incrimination" when seeking stay pending appeal of an order requiring production of certain documents). More to the point, any records which might ultimately (1) be deemed privileged communications, and (2) for which the privilege was not waived by disclosure to HCHK Technologies, Inc., can be clawed back and use by the Trustee prohibited. The Court has considered the other factors, i.e., whether the stay will substantially injure the other party and where the public interest lies, and concludes that such factors do not favor a stay. For the foregoing reasons, Movant's Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Appeal and Renewed Motion to Stay Pending Appeal are DENIED.Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 11/17/2023. (Chambers, Jillian)
|
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Luc Despins on behalf of Luc A. Despins (Despins, Luc) |
| Filing 10 Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Rule 7.1(a)(1) by G Club Operations LLC'S identifying Corporate Parent G Club International Limited, Corporate Parent Jovial Century International Limited, Corporate Parent Stitching Duurzame for G Club Operations LLC'S. (Baranowsky, Kellianne) |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Stay G Club Operations LLC's Renewed Motion to Stay Pending Appeal by G Club Operations LLC'S.Responses due by 12/8/2023 (Baranowsky, Kellianne) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Kellianne Baranowsky on behalf of G Club Operations LLC'S (Baranowsky, Kellianne) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE by Luc A. Despins re #6 Response, #1 MOTION to Stay Notice of Bankruptcy Court's Denial of Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (Linsey, Patrick) |
| Filing 6 RESPONSE re #1 MOTION to Stay (Preliminary Response) filed by Luc A. Despins. (Linsey, Patrick) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER OF TRANSFER. Case reassigned to Judge Kari A. Dooley for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11-16-2023. (Shafer, J.)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Related Case by Luc A. Despins (Linsey, Patrick) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick Roberts Linsey on behalf of Luc A. Despins (Linsey, Patrick) |
|
Filing 2
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 11/16/2023.(Barry, L)
|
| Filing 1 G Club Operations LLC's EMERGENCY MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8007 by G Club Operations LLC'S.Responses due by 12/7/2023 (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Memorandum of Law in Support)(Barry, L) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
