DVI Receivables XIV, LLC, et al v. Maury Rosenberg

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JULY 6, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-14823
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-24347-KMM ; 09-BKC-13196-AJC
In Re: MAURY ROSENBERG,
Debtor.
___________________________________
DVI RECEIVABLES XIV, LLC,
DVI RECEIVABLES XVI, LLC,
DVI RECEIVABLES XVII, LLC,
DVI RECEIVABLES XVIII, LLC,
DVI FUNDING, LLC,
ASHLAND FUNDING, LLC,
DVI RECEIVABLES XIX, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MAURY ROSENBERG,
Defendant-Appellee.

-- 1 of 3 --

________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 6, 2012)
Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellants were the petitioning creditors before the bankruptcy
court, and they brought an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, as amended,
against Maury Rosenberg as debtor. After an evidentiary hearing and exhaustive
briefing, the bankruptcy court granted Rosenberg’s motion to dismiss the
involuntary bankruptcy case, concluding that the Plaintiff-Appellants were not real
parties in interest for numerous reasons (including having no financial interest in
the case) and thus lacked standing to pursue the asserted claims as petitioning
creditors.
In its order filed on September 28, 2011, the district court affirmed the
bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the involuntary petition with prejudice. Although
the district court disagreed with one of the reasons given by the bankruptcy court
for the dismissal, the district court agreed with all of the other findings and
grounds for dismissal outlined in the bankruptcy court’s 34-page order, which the
2

-- 2 of 3 --

district court commended as “well-reasoned.”
After careful review, we conclude that the Plaintiff-Appellants have not
shown reversible error in the district court’s September 28, 2011 order. The
district court’s judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --