FL Tax COllectors vs. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., No. 08-15495 (11th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 08-15494 ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT DECEMBER 1, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket Nos. 07-00237 CV-J-33, 05-03817-3F1 IN RE: WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Debtor. ________________________________________________ FLORIDA TAX COLLECTORS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ No. 08-15495 ________________________ D. C. Docket Nos. 07-00240 CV-J-33, 05-03817-3F1 IN RE: WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Debtor. ________________________________________________ FLORIDA TAX COLLECTORS, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, versus WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant. ________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (December 1, 2009) Before MARCUS, FAY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The appeals in Nos. 08-15494 and 08-15495 were orally argued together on Wednesday, November 18, 2009. We sua sponte consolidate the two appeals. With respect to appeal No. 08-15494, the only issue in this appeal is whether the bankruptcy court and district court erred in fixing the interest rate for the tax 2 payments to appellants at seven percent.1 We conclude that there was no error. See United States v. Southern States Motor Inns, Inc., 709 F.2d 647 (11th Cir. 1983). With respect to appeal No. 08-15495, appellants arguments on appeal fail to establish any error in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the judgment of the court below rejecting the several arguments presented to the courts below is affirmed (including the following arguments which apparently were raised in the court below: the Tenth Amendment argument, the Eleventh Amendment argument, the argument based on the Tax Injunction Act, and the abstention argument). In addition, appellants sparse brief on appeal fails to establish error with respect to the application of 11 U.S.C. §505 in the court below. With respect to Winn-Dixie s cross-appeal in No. 08-15495, Winn-Dixie has failed to persuade us that the district court erred in concluding that the appropriate statute of limitations was 60 days. See Ward v. Brown, 894 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2004). AFFIRMED. 1 We construe appellants representations to the district court as a concession that this was the only issue. Accordingly, we disregard appellants other arguments in its brief in this appeal. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.