CRUISE HOLDINGS, LTD., APPELLANT,
v.
MORTEN MATHIESEN, APPELLEE
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.
Cruise Holdings, as appellant in a pending appeal, moves for a stay of proceedings based on bankruptcy proceedings initiated against its successor company. The court grants the stay based on a temporary restraining order from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court that prohibits continuation of proceedings involving the company.
The court grants the stay, not based on the automatic stay provision of § 362(a) (which the court has determined does not apply when the debtor is the appellant), but rather as a matter of comity in deference to the temporary restraining order issued by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, which expressly prohibits prosecution of the appeal.
[1] A court may grant a stay of an appeal as a matter of comity in deference to a temporary restraining order issued by a United States Bankruptcy Court.
[2] The automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. …
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This court has, however, taken the position that when the debtor is the appellant, the automatic stay is inapplicable.”
Establishes the court's interpretation that § 362(a) does not apply to debtors who are appellants
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCruise Holdings suffered an adverse judgment in trial court and appealed. Premier Operations, Ltd., a Bermuda company that is the successor in interes…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Automatic Stay (11 U.S.C. § 362) cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion for Stay Pending Bankruptcy Proceedings
COPE, J.
Cruise Holdings, Ltd. moves for a stay of this appeal on account of pending bankruptcy proceedings. We grant the stay. Cruise Holdings suffered an adverse judgment in the trial court and appealed to this court.
Premier Operations, Ltd. is the successor in interest to Cruise Holdings, Ltd. Premier is a Bermuda company.
While this appeal was pending, the Acting Registrar of Companies of Bermuda sought a winding-up of Premier by the Supreme Court of Bermuda. In September, 2000, the Bermuda Court appointed Provisional Liquidators.
The Provisional Liquidators filed an ancillary bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
Counsel for appellant advised this court that the appeal should be stayed on account of the automatic bankruptcy stay provided by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). This court has, however, taken the position that when the debtor is the appellant, the automatic stay is inapplicable. Shop in the Grove, Ltd. v. Union Federal Savings & Loan Association of Miami, 425 So. 2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).* This interpretation is based on the wording of the automatic stay provision. Id. This court does, however, freely grant extensions of time which may be necessitated by bankruptcy proceedings. See 425 So. 2d at 1139 n. 5.
Based on Shop in the Grove, this court declined to apply the automatic stay provision to this appeal, but instead granted extensions of time which were requested on the appellant’s behalf.
By a status report which we have treated as a renewed motion for stay, Cruise Holdings points out that the United States Bankruptcy Court has entered a temporary restraining order which provides in part:
(2) All persons and entities ... subject to the jurisdiction of this Court are enjoined and restrained from ... (b) commencing or continuing any action ... or proceeding (including, without limitation, arbitration or any judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative, maritime, or regulatory action, proceeding or process whatsoever) involving the Company.:..
(Emphasis added; some emphasis deleted).
By its express terms, the temporary restraining order prohibits the parties from prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, as a matter of comity, we enter a stay in deference to the order of the United States Bankruptcy Court.
Stay granted.
*
There is a division of authority on this point. See Taylor v. Barnett Bank of North Central Florida, N.A.,, 737 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA) and cases cited therein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emilio Mantero-Atienza, M.D. v. Salvador, 807 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…stay and this petition follows. II. As a matter of comity, the trial court should have entered a stay in deference to the New York Order of Rehabilitation. We entered a stay in indistinguishable circumstances in Cruise Holdings, Ltd. v. Mathiesen, 804 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). It is the public policy of Florida to cooperate in insolvency proceedings like those now before us. If the situation were reversed so that there was a Florida insurance company receivership and a pending New York lawsuit, we cou…
Authorities Cited
- Shop IN THE Grove, Ltd. v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Miami, 425 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Taylor v. Barnett Bank OF N. Cent. Fla., N.A., 737 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)