Townhouse Hotel LLC v. Universal Investments Unlimited, Inc., 1:20-cv-24719

Townhouse Hotel LLC operated a Miami Beach hotel and defaulted on rent after COVID-19 restrictions impaired operations.
Townhouse filed Chapter 11 on September 16, 2020, triggering the automatic stay and prompting competing motions about rent and stay relief.
Townhouse moved under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) for an extension of time to pay October–November 2020 rent and to determine pre- and post-petition rent obligations; Universal opposed and sought rent and stay relief.
The Bankruptcy Court (Nov. 12, 2020) granted Townhouse an extension but ordered payment of rent from Sept. 16–Nov. 16, 2020, rejected equitable abatement/apportionment of post-petition rent, reserved ruling on pre-petition rent, and granted relief from the stay in part.
Townhouse sought leave to file an interlocutory appeal to the district court under Bankruptcy Rule 8004 and 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).
The district court denied leave to appeal, finding Townhouse failed to show a controlling question of law appropriate for interlocutory review, and closed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Bankruptcy Court’s order directing payment of post-petition rent presents a controlling question of law	Townhouse: the order deviates from Florida law by applying the post-petition rent statute without accounting for implied lease conditions	Universal: the order correctly applied statute and law to the case-specific facts	Court: Not a pure question of law but a mixed law-and-fact issue; fails § 1292(b) first element; leave denied
Whether there was evidentiary support for using unabated rent as the measure of adequate protection	Townhouse: the Bankruptcy Court had no evidence to support that measurement	Universal: the record supports the Bankruptcy Court’s adequate protection determination as a factual finding	Court: This is a mixed question of law and fact, not suitable for interlocutory appeal; leave denied
Whether interlocutory leave should be granted under § 1292(b) criteria	Townhouse: immediate appellate resolution will materially advance termination of litigation	Universal: § 1292(b) requirements are not met because issues are not controlling pure legal questions	Court: § 1292(b) not satisfied (Townhouse failed to establish a controlling question of law); motion denied

Laurent v. Herkert, [citation="196 F. App'x 771"] (11th Cir. 2006) (district courts look to § 1292(b) factors when deciding leave under § 158(a))
In re Charter Co., 778 F.2d 617 (11th Cir. 1985) (discussing interlocutory appeal standards in bankruptcy context)
McFarlin v. Conseco Servs., LLC, 381 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2004) (interlocutory appeals require pure questions of law, not application of law to facts)
Mamani v. Berzain, 825 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2016) (pure legal issues must be abstract and quickly decidable by an appellate court)
Nice v. L-3 Commc'ns Vertex Aerospace LLC, 885 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2018) (case-specific inquiries present mixed questions of law and fact and are unsuitable for § 1292(b) interlocutory appeals)
Figueroa v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., 382 B.R. 814 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (leave must be denied if any one § 1292(b) element is not met)