In re Delta Starr Broadcasting, LLC, No. 2:2010cv04465 - Document 11 (E.D. La. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER & REASONS denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 6/27/2011. (rll, )

Download PDF
In re Delta Starr Broadcasting, LLC Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DELTA STARR BROADCASTING, L.L.C. CIVIL ACTION Jointly Administered with LA-TERR BROADCASTING CORP. NO: 10-4465 Bankruptcy No: 05-12087 c/w 0610107 and 06-10523 SECTION: R(3) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is the motion of John Treen asking the Court to reconsider its May 3, 2011 order. In that order, the Court dismissed as moot Treen and Vincent Bruno’s appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s order approving the Trustee’s Final Report and Proposed Distribution.1 Treen argues that the Court’s May 3, 2011 order was premature because the order2 affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling that it had subject matter jurisdiction was still pending before the Court of Appeals. On April 19, 2011, the Fifth Circuit affirmed this Court’s and the Bankruptcy 1 In re Delta Starr Broadcasting, L.L.C., No. 10-4465 (E.D. La. May 3, 2011). 2 In re Delta Starr Broadcasting, L.L.C., No. 09-7127 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2010). Dockets.Justia.com Court’s findings that jurisdiction existed.3 On May 3, 2011, Treen filed a petition for rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for a rehearing and the petition for a rehearing en banc on May 20, 2011.4 The issue on this appeal, whether the Bankruptcy Court was correct in approving the Trustee’s distribution while the jurisdictional appeal was pending before the Fifth Circuit, is moot. Therefore, Treen’s motion to reconsider the May 3, 2010 order is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this ____ day of June, 2011. 27th _____________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 In re Delta Starr Broadcasting, L.L.C., No. 10-30195 (5th Cir. Apr. 19, 2011) (per curiam). 4 In re Delta Starr Broadcasting, L.L.C., No. 10-30195 (5th Cir. May 20, 2011) (per curiam).

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.