YORMAK
v.
TARDIF
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the motion to certify an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit with leave to refile, warning against improper emergency designations.
Appellant Steven Yormak filed an emergency motion asking the court to certify his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. The motion was filed over a month in…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Appellee. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is Appellant Steven Yormak’s Emergency Motion to Certify Appeal to Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal. (Doc. 9). About two weeks ago, Yormak told the Court about a pending motion with the Eleventh Circuit to certify this case for a direct appeal there. (Doc. 6). Now, he asks the Court to make that certification. When a party labels a motion an emergency, the Court drops everything it is working on (like criminal cases, temporary restraining orders, and other time-sensitive matters) to handle the filing. For that reason, improperly designating a motion as an emergency is sanctionable conduct. Local Rule 3.01(e). While titled an “emergency,” the
Additionally, it appears Yormak’s certification may be untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(E); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006(f).
This buttresses the Court’s decision not to rule on the issue of certification without giving other parties an opportunity to weigh in. For now, the Court simply denies the Motion with leave to refile. Yormak can file a proper motion that sufficiently explains entitlement to relief. But Yormak should consider this his first and final warning that improperly designating motions as emergencies will result in sanctions going forward. See, e.g., Palmer v. Moran, No. 3:12- cv-814-J-12MCR, 2013 WL 2479963, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 10, 2013); Watson v. Equifax, No. 3:12-cv-552-J-99MMH-JBT, 2013 WL 12385316, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2013); Onward Healthcare, Inc. v. Runnels, No. 6:12-cv-508-Orl-37KRS, 2012 WL 1259074, at (M.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2012).
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Appellant's Emergency Motion to Certify Appeal to Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal (Doc. 9) is DENIED with leave to refile. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 30th day of June, 2020.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record