Deandre Russell v. Anthony Ingegneri, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16943
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 5:15-cv-01699-KOB; 5:14-bkc-80149-CRJ
In re: DEANDRE RUSSELL,
Debtor.
__________________________________________________________________
DEANDRE RUSSELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ANTHONY INGEGNERI,
MARK PETTERSON,
MARK GRIFFIN,
KELLEY ASKEW GILLIKIN,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(February 21, 2018)
Case: 16-16943 Date Filed: 02/21/2018 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Deandre Russell, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order
affirming the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of his adversary proceeding. On appeal,
Russell argues that the bankruptcy court erred by dismissing his adversary
proceeding instead of sua sponte transferring it to a district court.
We review legal conclusions by both the bankruptcy court and the district
court de novo. In re Morris, 950 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1992).
While the dismissal of an underlying bankruptcy case does not automatically
strip a federal court of jurisdiction over an adversary proceeding which was related
to the bankruptcy case at the time of its commencement, the decision whether to
retain jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding is left to the sound discretion of
the bankruptcy court or the district court, depending upon where the adversary
proceeding is pending. Id. at 1534. We have considered three factors in
determining whether jurisdiction over the proceeding should be retained:
(1) judicial economy; (2) fairness and convenience to the litigants; and (3) the
degree of difficulty of the related legal issues involved. Id. at 1535.
Case: 16-16943 Date Filed: 02/21/2018 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Here, the district court did not err by affirming the bankruptcy court’s
dismissal of Russell’s adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy court correctly
applied the Morris factors, noting that the underlying bankruptcy had been
dismissed, that discovery had not yet occurred on Russell’s claims, that the
defendants had not consented to adjudication by the bankruptcy court, and that
Russell was seeking a jury trial for his claims.
AFFIRMED.1
1 Russell’s motion for an appeals conference and motion to file an untimely motion for
reconsideration of our order denying a stay are DENIED.
Case: 16-16943 Date Filed: 02/21/2018 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --