Gregory Myers v. Naples Golf and Beach Club, Inc.
25-7018
D.C. Cir.Jun 2, 2025Background
- Gregory B. Myers appealed the denial of his motion for leave to file in district court in a dispute involving Naples Golf and Beach Club, Inc. and related entities.
- Myers suggested the appellate court should stay proceedings due to bankruptcy, but the court found the case was not against a debtor or property of the bankruptcy estate.
- Appellees moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and sought sanctions, arguing Myers's actions were in bad faith and for an improper purpose.
- The appellant did not respond to the motion to dismiss, and the court found no jurisdiction for this appeal because the district court’s denial of leave to file is not a final or appealable interlocutory order.
- The court granted sanctions for attorneys’ fees and costs against Myers but denied, without prejudice, a bar on future appeals and contempt sanctions.
- The D.C. Circuit Court ordered that appellees submit their documentation of fees and costs, and Myers may respond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Bankruptcy Stay | Stay should apply due to bankruptcy | Case not against debtor or estate property; no stay applies | Stay denied; not applicable under § 362 |
| Appellate Jurisdiction | Implied right to appeal | No final order or qualifying interlocutory appeal | No jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
| Motion for Sanctions | No opposition offered | Appeal brought in bad faith/improper purpose to harass or delay | Sanctions granted for attorneys’ fees and costs |
| Scope of Sanctions | Opposed broad sanctions | Sought bar on future appeals and contempt as well | Broader sanctions denied without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (party can forfeit a claim regarding appellate jurisdiction by failing to respond)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (burden of establishing jurisdiction lies with the appellant)
- Scenic Am., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 836 F.3d 42 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (jurisdictional claims can be forfeited)
- Reliance Ins. Co. v. Sweeney Corp., Md., 792 F.2d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (court may issue sanctions for improper purpose, such as harassment or delay)