In Re. Minkina et al
| TIAA, FSB, Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz, LLP, EverBank and Medical Professional Mutual Insurance Company |
| Carolyn Bankowski-13-12 and John Fitzgerald |
| Nataly Minkina |
| 1:2019cv11583 |
| July 17, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Mark G Mastroianni |
| Bankruptcy Appeal (801) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1334 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 12, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 Opposition re #8 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal filed by Nataly Minkina. (Sullivan, Ryan) |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal by Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz, LLP.(Casher, Dana) |
| Filing 7 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered denying #6 Motion to Stay Pending Appeal without prejudice for failure to certify compliance with Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) by conferring with opposing counsel and indicating to the court whether the motion to stay will be opposed. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal by Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz, LLP.(Casher, Dana) |
| Filing 5 Judge Mark G. Mastroianni: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting the Motion to Expedite Action #4 and the Motion for Leave to Appeal contained within #1 Notice of Appeal. As Appellant notes in the Motion to Expedite, the Motion for Leave to Appeal was not docketed as a motion separate from the Notice of Appeal and, therefore, the need for immediate action by the court was not apparent from the docket. Under 28 U.S.C. 158(a)(3), this court has discretion to hear an appeal of an interlocutory order of the bankruptcy court. Appeals shall be taken in the same manner as appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the courts of appeals from the district courts. U.S.C. 158(c)(2). Pursuant to those guidelines, interlocutory appeal is appropriate where the district court shall be of the opinion that [the appealed order] involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. 1292(b). This court finds that the Bankruptcy Courts decision not to follow In re Snyder, 249 B.R. 40 (1st Cir. BAP 2000), which applied Coraccio v. Lowell Five Cents Savings Bank, 612 N.E.2d 650 (Mass. 1993) meets this standard. Additionally, this court agrees with the Bankruptcy Courts recent Certification regarding Direct Appeal and that certification of direct appeal to the First Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(2)(A) is appropriate. (Lindsay, Maurice) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Expedite , MOTION for Leave to Appeal ( Responses due by 8/30/2019) by Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz, LLP.(Casher, Dana) |
| Filing 3 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 2 Copy of Bankruptcy Docket Received: #1 Bankruptcy Appeal (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 1 Notice of APPEAL FROM BANKRUPTCY COURT. Bankruptcy Court case number 18-13325. File received (Attachments: #1 Initial Transmittal)(Coppola, Katelyn) |
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 Massachusetts 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.
