Maury Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables XIV, LLC
818 F.3d 1283
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Rosenberg filed an adversary claim under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i) after a bankruptcy court dismissed an involuntary Chapter 7 petition against him; the § 303(i)(2) damages claims were withdrawn to district court for a jury trial while § 303(i)(1) fee claims remained in bankruptcy court.
- A jury in district court found defendants acted in bad faith and awarded $1,120,000 compensatory and $5,000,000 punitive damages; the district court entered final judgment on March 14, 2013.
- Defendants filed a post-trial Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law 28 days after judgment; Rosenberg moved to strike as untimely under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9015(c)’s 14-day deadline.
- The district court applied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28-day Rule 50(b) deadline), considered the motion timely, and granted it in part, reducing the award to $360,000 for emotional distress.
- On appeal, Eleventh Circuit considered whether bankruptcy or civil procedural rules govern timeliness of Rule 50(b) motions in district courts trying title 11 cases, and whether the defendants’ motion was therefore timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rosenberg) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which procedural rules govern post-trial deadlines in district court when trying a case "arising under" title 11? | Fed. R. Bankr. P. govern; Rule 9015(c) imposes a 14-day deadline. | Fed. R. Civ. P. should apply; Rule 50(b) affords 28 days and aligns with civil appeals timeline. | Federal Bankruptcy Rules govern; Rule 9015(c) applies, so 14-day deadline controls. |
| Was the defendants’ Rule 50(b) motion timely? | N/A (argued untimely) | Motion timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) (28 days). | Untimely under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9015(c); motion should not have been considered. |
| Should timeliness run from resolution of related claims remaining in bankruptcy court? | Time to file should wait until all claims (including fee claims) are finally adjudicated. | District court judgment was final for the tried claims; timing should run from that entry. | Timing runs from the district court entry for the withdrawn adversary claims; separate fora = separate timelines. |
| Can appellate or procedural rule conflicts justify ignoring Bankruptcy Rules? | Applying shorter bankruptcy deadlines conflicts with appellate timing and Rule 6(a) treatment of bankruptcy appeals. | N/A | No conflict; shorter Rule 9015(c) deadline is compatible with appellate rules and must be applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Mouzon Enters., Inc., 610 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for district court conclusions on rule applicability)
- Mega Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Pieniozek, 585 F.3d 1399 (11th Cir.) (de novo review cited for rule interpretation)
- Community for Creative Non–Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) (plain-language interpretation of federal rules)
- In re Celotex Corp., 124 F.3d 619 (4th Cir.) (applying Bankruptcy Rules for service and procedure in district court on title 11 matters)
- Diamond Mortg. Corp. v. Sugar, 913 F.2d 1233 (7th Cir.) (same principle for service and jurisdictional procedure)
- Phar‑Mor, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 22 F.3d 1228 (3d Cir.) (Bankruptcy Rules govern related-to proceedings in district court)
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift‑Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006) (preservation rule: failure to raise sufficiency in post‑verdict motion forfeits appellate review)
- Lodge v. Kondaur Capital Corp., 750 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir.) (addressed limits on emotional-distress damages at issue in cross-appeal)