United States District Court, S.D. Florida
IN RE FRANCISCO R. AMADOR IN RE EDUVINA I. AMADOR
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
G. COOKE United States District Judge.
MATTER is before me upon Petitioners' Petition for a Writ
of Mandamus (ECF No. 1). I have carefully considered the
Petition, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. For
the following reasons, Petitioners' Petition is denied as
August 24, 2017, the bankruptcy judge in No. 17-13315-RAM
issued an order granting Petitioners' motion to dismiss
their bankruptcy case on the condition they pay the
reasonable attorneys' fees of the bankruptcy trustee.
See BC ECF No. 106. The order specifically gave
Petitioners a deadline by which to file any objections to the
Trustee's Fee Statement, and provided that if Petitioners
and Trustee's counsel could not agree on a reasonable fee
and terms of payment, the Petitioners could file a motion.
Id. Petitioners appealed that order to the district
court in No. 17-CIV-23502-MGC, arguing that the order was a
final appealable order, or alternatively, seeking leave to
file an interlocutory appeal. See DC ECF No. 1. I
determined the order was not a final order and declined to
consider their interlocutory appeal. DC ECF No. 17.
Petitioners then filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing my order
to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. DC ECF No. 18. On
January 2, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal
sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 1-2,
35. On January 9, 2018, the Trustee filed a Motion to Set
Hearing on its Motion for Protective Order, Petitioners'
Motion to Compel, and Trustee's Motion to Extend Time to
File Section 727 Complaint. See BC ECF No. 144. On
January 16, 2018, the bankruptcy court issued an Order
Resetting Hearings and Setting Response Deadlines, which set
hearing dates for the motions and response deadlines for
Petitioners to respond to the Trustee's motions.
Id. On January 22, 2018, Petitioners filed a Motion
for Reconsideration of the Eleventh Circuit's order
dismissing their appeal. See COA Motion. The
Eleventh Circuit denied the motion on February 23, 2018.
See COA Order.
seek a writ of mandamus against the bankruptcy court judge,
requiring the bankruptcy court judge to vacate the order
resetting hearings or, alternatively, to stay the bankruptcy
court proceedings pending appeal.
III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction
of federal courts to cases and controversies.”
Zinni v. ER Sols., Inc., 692 F.3d 1162, 1166 (11th
Cir. 2012) (citing Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94
(1968)). “With regard to mootness, the Supreme Court
has explained ‘a federal court has no authority to give
opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to
declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the
matter in issue in the case before it.'”
Id. (quoting Church of Scientology of Cal. v.
United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992)). “An issue
is moot ‘when it no longer presents a live controversy
with respect to which the court can give meaningful
relief.'” Friends of Everglades v. South
Florida Water Management Dist., 570 F.3d 1210, 1216
(11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fla. Ass'n of Rehab
Facilities, Inc. v. Fla. Dept. of Health & Rehab.
Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1217 (11th Cir. 2000)).
entire claim for relief is premised on the notion that their
appeal is still pending before the Eleventh Circuit. As
discussed above, their appeal was dismissed on January 2,
2018. As such, even if Petitioners had proven that they met
the extraordinary requirements to justify a writ of mandamus,
a writ at this time would serve no meaningful purpose, as the
bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to proceed with the case
reasons discussed above, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as
Petitioners' Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (ECF No. 1)
is DENIED as moot.
above-styled cause is hereby DISMISSED.
Clerk shall CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, are
DENIED as moot.
and ORDERED in Chambers, at Miami, Florida, this