Sky Enterprises, LLC v. Seawalk Investments, LLC

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13172
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
In re: SEAWALK INVESTMENTS, LLC
Debtor.
_______________________________________________
SKY ENTERPRISES, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SEAWALK INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
USCA11 Case: 23-13172 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13172
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-01148-TJC
____________________
Before WILSON, J ILL PRYOR , and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sky Enterprises, LLC (“Sky”) appeals from the district
court’s August 29, 2023 order, which affirmed several bankruptcy
court rulings but remanded for further consideration of the
amount of attorney’s fees to which Sky is entitled as part of its se-
cured claim. We asked the parties to address whether we have ju-
risdiction to review that order. Upon our review of the record and
the response to our jurisdictional question, this appeal is
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
We conclude that the pending attorney’s fees issue is not
collateral to the underlying bankruptcy dispute and is instead inter-
twined with the merits. The bankruptcy court did not award at-
torney’s fees to Sky as a sanction; instead, Sky’s entitlement to at-
torney’s fees arises from the mortgage and promissory note that
formed the basis of its secured claim. A change in the attorney’s
fees amount will thus affect the value of the claim, which was an
essential merits issue resolved by the bankruptcy court.
Accordingly, the district court’s August 29, 2023 order did
not “[end] the litigation on the merits and [leave] nothing for the
USCA11 Case: 23-13172 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-13172 Opinion of the Court 3
court to do but execute the judgment.” See Mich. State Univ. v. As-
bestos Settlement Tr. (In re Celotex Corp.), 700 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th
Cir. 2012). Nor did the order leave only a “ministerial duty collat-
eral to the merits of the action” for the bankruptcy court to per-
form on remand. See Miscott Corp. v. Zaremba Walden Co. (In re Mis-
cott Corp.), 848 F.2d 1190, 1193 (11th Cir. 1988). We thus lack juris-
diction to consider this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1).
USCA11 Case: 23-13172 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --