Deandre Russell v. Anthony Ingegneri, et al., No. 16-16943 (11th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-16943 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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) 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. 2 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. 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.
