Pro Finish, Inc. v. John A. Moffa , 631 F. App'x 699 ( 2015 )

Case: 15-10619 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10619
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 0:14-cv-62446-BB,
0:12-24619-JKO
In re: ALL AMERICAN TRAILER MANUFACTURERS, INC.,
Debtor.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-
PRO FINISH, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN A. MOFFA,
assignee of the assignment Estate of
All American Trailer Manufacturers, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 9, 2015)
Case: 15-10619 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 Page: 2 of 5
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Pro Finish, Inc., appeals a judgment affirming an order that dismissed nunc
pro tunc to April 30, 2013, the petition of All American Trailer Manufacturers,
Inc., for bankruptcy. We directed the parties to file supplemental letter briefs
addressing whether Pro Finish suffered an injury that gave it standing to challenge
the nunc pro tunc order. After careful review, we answer that question in the
negative. We vacate the judgment affirming the nunc pro tunc order and remand
for the district court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 15, 2012, All American Trailer filed a petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Pro Finish was the
largest creditor of All American Trailer, after having obtained a default judgment
against it in a Florida court for breach of contract and fraud.
The United States Trustee moved to dismiss or convert the petition. See 11
U.S.C. § 1112(b). Pro Finish attended a hearing on the motion on April 30, 2013,
during which the Trustee and All American Trailer presented an agreement to
dismiss the bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court ruled that it would issue a writ
of assistance and enter an order of dismissal. Later that day, an issue arose about
whether all creditors had received notice of the hearing.
2
Case: 15-10619 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 Page: 3 of 5
On May 1, 2013, the bankruptcy court re-noticed the Trustee’s motion for a
second hearing. During the interim, the bankruptcy court determined that all
creditors had received notice. On May 2, 2013, Pro Finish recorded a judgment
lien on the assets of All American Trailer.
On May 8, 2013, All American Trailer assigned its assets to John A. Moffa.
Moffa filed a petition for assignment, see Fla. Stat. § 727.104, and Pro Finish
objected. A Florida court dismissed Moffa’s petition. Pro Finish then terminated its
judgment lien against All American Trailer.
On June 4, 2013, during the second hearing on the Trustee’s motion, the
bankruptcy court agreed to make its order of dismissal effective as of April 30,
2013. On June 11, 2013, the bankruptcy court filed an order of dismissal that failed
to mention an earlier effective date.
On April 15, 2014, Moffa moved to correct the order of dismissal to reflect
that it was effective as of April 30, 2013. On September 2, 2014, the bankruptcy
court filed an order that dismissed nunc pro tunc to April 30, 2013, the petition of
All American Trailer for relief under Chapter 11. Pro Finish filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the bankruptcy court denied.
Pro Finish appealed and argued that the bankruptcy court exceeded its
authority by issuing the nunc pro tunc order. The district court ruled that the
bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by entering a nunc pro tunc order to
3
Case: 15-10619 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 Page: 4 of 5
clarify that it had dismissed the petition for bankruptcy during its hearing on April
30, 2013.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“We review de novo questions concerning our subject matter jurisdiction,
including standing . . . .” Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204 (11th Cir. 2006).
III. DISCUSSION
The jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to actual cases and controversies.
U.S. Const. Art. 3 § 2. “The standing doctrine is an aspect of this case or
controversy requirement.” Cone Corp. v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 921 F.2d 1190,
1203 (11th Cir. 1991). To establish standing, an appellant must satisfy three
requirements: an injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Id. at 1203–04. “The
injury must be ‘real and immediate,’ not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Id. at
1204 (citing City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 1665
(1983)).
Pro Finish lacks standing to challenge the nunc pro tunc order. That order
implemented an earlier ruling to dismiss the petition for bankruptcy of All
American Trailer and did not affect the rights of Pro Finish as a creditor. When the
bankruptcy court issued the nunc pro tunc order, a Florida court already had
dismissed Moffa’s petition for assignment of the assets of All American Trailer.
We cannot speculate about what effect, if any, the nunc pro tunc order will have on
4
Case: 15-10619 Date Filed: 11/09/2015 Page: 5 of 5
Moffa’s enforcement of the assignment. See Bowen v. First Family Fin. Servs., 233
F.3d 1331, 1340 (11th Cir. 2000) (observing that “a ‘perhaps’ or ‘maybe’ chance
. . . [of an injury] is not enough to give . . . standing”). Pro Finish argues that it was
prejudiced because the nunc pro tunc order issued after Pro Finish had released its
judgment lien against All American Trailer, but any injury to the priority of Pro
Finish as a creditor is attributable to its actions, not to the nunc pro tunc order.
Because Pro Finish did not suffer any immediate, tangible harm that would give it
standing to challenge the nunc pro tunc order, see Cone Corp., 921 F.2d at 1204,
its appeal is not fit for adjudication.
IV. CONCLUSION
We VACATE the order affirming the nunc pro tunc order, and we
REMAND for the district court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
5