Hoffman et al et al v. Genesis Healthcare Inc et al

U n i t e d 	S t a t e s 	D i s t r i c t 	C o u r t
N O R T H E R N D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S
D A L L A S D I V I S I O N
ADAM 	HOFFMAN, 	et 	al.
§
C I V I L A C T I O N N O . 3 : 2 5 - C V - 3 2 2 4 - S	§	V .
§
GENESIS 	HEALTHCARE, 	INC., 	et 	al. 	§
§
§ 	B A N K R U P T C Y 	C A S E
N O . 2 5 - 8 0 1 8 5 - S G J l l
I N R E :
GENESIS 	HEALTHCARE, 	INC., 	et 	al. 	§
M E M O R A N D U M 	O P I N I O N 	A N D 	O R D E R
This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses Appellants Healthcare Negligence
Claimants” Motion for Leave to Appeal Claims Liquidation Procedures Order (“Motion”) [ECF
No. 1-2]. Having considered the Motion, Appellees Genesis Healthcare, Inc., and certain of its
affiliates and subsidiaries’ Response to the Motion [ECF No. 2], and the applicable law, the Court
D E N I E S t h e M o t i o n .
I . 	B A C K G R O U N D
On July 9and 10, 2025, Appellees filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (“Bankruptcy Court”). Appellees moved for
approval of the Unliquidated Claim Procedures, which proposed astreamlined process for
liquidating personal injury, wrongful death, and other negligence claims against Appellees and
non-debtor co-defendants. See Debtors’ Motion for Entry of an Order (I) Approving and
Authorizing Mandatory Unliquidated Claim Procedures to Resolve Professional Liability and
General Liability Claims; (II) Requiring the Debtors’ Insurers to Satisfy Their Obligations Under
the Applicable Policies; and (III) Granting Related Relief (“Claim Procedures Motion”), In re
Unless otherwise defined herein, defined terms have the same meaning as in the underlying order.
Case 3:25-cv-03224-S Document 4 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

Genesis Healthcare, Inc., No. 25-80185-SGJl 1(Bankr. N.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2025), Dkt. No. 1201.
The Bankruptcy Court granted the Claim Procedures Motion and adopted the Unliquidated Claim
Procedures. See Order (I) Approving and Authorizing Mandatory Unliquidated Claim Procedures
to Resolve Professional Liability and General Liability Claims; (II) Requiring the Debtors’
Insurers to Satisfy Their Obligations Under the Applicable Policies; and (III) Granting Related
Relief (“Bankruptcy Court Order”) [ECF No. 1-2] 29-33. On November 21, 2025, Appellants’
Notice of Appeal relating to the Bankruptcy Court Order was filed in this Court. See Notice of
Appeal [ECF No. 1-1]. Contemporaneously, Appellants filed the Motion, seeking leave to appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §158(a)(3). See Mot. 1. In the Motion, Appellants challenge the Bankruptcy
Court’s jurisdiction over state law claims and the non-debtor co-defendants, the Bankruptcy
Court’s entry of an injimction regarding certain claims, and the impact of the Bankruptcy Court
Order on the Seventh Amendment right to ajury trial. Mot f18.
I I . 	L E G A L 	S T A N D A R D
Adistrict court may grant leave to appeal abankruptcy court’s interlocutory order pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §158(a)(3). “The decision to grant or deny leave to appeal abankruptcy court’s
interlocutory order is committed to the district court’s discretion.” Stumpf v. McGee {In re
O’Conner), 258 F.3d 392, 399-400 (5th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Appeals from bankruptcy
courts are “taken in the same manner as appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the
courts of appeals from the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. §158(c)(2). Thus, while Section 158(a)(3)
does not provide astandard for determining when to grant leave, district courts have adopted the
standard under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b) that applies to circuit court review of interlocutory district
court orders. See, e.g., Dondero v. Jernigan {In re Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P.), No. 3:21-CV-
2
Case 3:25-cv-03224-S Document 4 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

0879-K, 2022 WL 394760, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2022) (collecting cases).
Under Section 1292(b), an interlocutory order may be appealed if the district court
determines that it involves “[(1)] acontrolling question of law [(2)] as to which there is substantial
ground for difference of opinion and [(3)] that an immediate appeal from the order may materially
advance the ultimate termination of the litigation[.]” 28 U.S.C. §1292(b). “The moving party has
the burden to demonstrate the need for interlocutory appeal[,]” and all three of the statutory criteria
must be met before an interlocutory appeal is proper. Alex v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-
1532-M, 2018 WL 11275541, at* 1(N.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2018); .yee also Aparicio v. Swan Lake,
643 F.2d 1109, 1110 n.2 (5th Cir. Unit AApr. 1981). “Permission to appeal under§ 1292(b) is
sparingly granted and the Fifth Circuit disfavors interlocutory appeals,” allowing certification only
in “exceptional” cases. Odlev. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,lAo. 3:1 l-CV-2954-0,2013 WL 66035, at *2
(N.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2013) (citing United States v. Garner, 749 F.2d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 1985)).
I I I . 	A N A L Y S I S
In arguing for leave to appeal. Appellants primarily focus on the “good cause” standard
under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8004(b)(1), despite acknowledging that district
courts have consistently “applied the standard under 28 U.S.C. §1292.” Mot. 120. This Court has
adopted the standard under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b), and Appellants must meet the requirements of
that statute.
The Court finds that Appellants have not met the statutory criteria for an interlocutory
appeal because they have not demonstrated that an appeal would materially advance the ultimate
termination of the underlying bankruptcy proceeding. The Unliquidated Claim Procedures set forth
astandard methodology for informal and formal negotiations, fostering settlement and liquidation
of Unliquidated Claims.” Bankruptcy Ct. Order, Ex. 1[ECF No. 1-2] 36. Considering that the
3
Case 3:25-cv-03224-S Document 4 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

Unliquidated Claim Procedures were “designed to promote the efficient liquidation of unliquidated
claims against [Appellees] for purposes of [the] jointly administered bankruptcy cases[,]” id..
resolving an appeal in favor of Appellants would disrupt the settlement process and slow the
ultimate termination of the underlying bankruptcy proceeding. Fmfher, resolving whether the
Bankruptcy Court had the authority to issue the Bankruptcy Court Order would not decrease the
number of issues remaining before the Bankruptcy Court. Appellants have not articulated, and it
is not apparent, how resolving the question of the validity of the Bankruptcy Court Order “would
eliminate the need for trial, simplify the issues for trial, or reduce the burden of discovery.
Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc. v. Moser, No. 4:19-CV-375, 2019 WL 4226854, at *3 (E.D. Tex.
Sept. 4, 2019) (citation omitted).
Because Appellants have not demonstrated that an appeal of the Bankruptcy Court Order
would materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, they have not demonstrated
that the Court should grant leave to appeal. Thus, the Court need not address the remaining
Section 	1292(b) 	factors. 	See 	Center 	v. 	Reed 	{In 	re 	Center), 	No. 	3:19-CV-1951-E,
2020 WL 3129637, at *3 n.2 (N.D. Tex. June 12, 2020) (citation omitted).
I V . 	C O N C L U S I O N
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Appellants Healthcare Negligence
Claimants’ Motion for Leave to Appeal Claims Liquidation Procedures Order [ECF No. 1-2].
S O 	O R D E R E D .
SIGNED March 2, 2026.
K A R E N 	G R E N 	S C H O L E R
U N I T E D 	S T A T E S 	D I S T R I C T 	J U D G E
4
Case 3:25-cv-03224-S Document 4 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>