[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
September 19, 2006
No. 06-10820 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket Nos.
05-61156-CV-AJ
03-20062-BKC-PG
LEO GREENFIELD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BFP INVESTMENTS LIMITED,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 19, 2006)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-appellant Leo Greenfield (“Greenfield”), proceeding pro se, appeals
the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying his second
motion for rehearing. Because Greenfield has no legally cognizable interest in the
outcome of this appeal, we affirm the district court and deny Greenfield’s pending
motions.
I. BACKGROUND
Because this is Greenfield’s third appeal in this Court, we first review the
events that led to the two prior appeals.
A. Greenfield I
Defendant-appellee BFP Investments Limited (“BFP Limited”) is a Florida
limited partnership that owned multiple commercial condominium properties. In
January 2003, BFP Limited filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In May 2003,
Greenfield filed a proof of claim for approximately $4.2 million against BFP
Limited in the bankruptcy court.
Greenfield’s proof of claim was based on a 1997 state-court lawsuit in which
he named thirteen defendants, including BFP Limited’s two owners. BFP Limited
was not named as a defendant in Greenfield’s 1997 lawsuit; in fact, BFP Limited
did not exist at the time of the 1997 lawsuit. In January 2004, the state court
entered judgment in favor of Greenfield, for approximately $2.2 million. Again,
2
BFP Limited was not a party to, nor was it declared responsible for, the $2.2
million judgment.
In June 2003, BFP Limited filed an objection to Greenfield’s bankruptcy
claim. In February 2004, the bankruptcy court sustained BFP Limited’s objection
and struck and disallowed Greenfield’s bankruptcy claim. Greenfield appealed and
the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision in October 2004.
Greenfield appealed and this Court affirmed the district court’s decision in August
2005. See Greenfield v. BFP Invs., Ltd. (In re BFP Invs., Ltd.), 149 Fed. Appx.
828 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (“Greenfield I”). The basis for this Court’s
decision in Greenfield I was that Greenfield had no valid claim in bankruptcy
against BFP Limited.
B. Greenfield II
In August 2003, while BFP Limited’s objection to Greenfield’s bankruptcy
claim was still pending before the bankruptcy court, the bankruptcy court entered
an order confirming BFP Limited’s second amended plan of reorganization. Then,
in August 2004, while Greenfield’s first appeal was pending before the district
court, Greenfield filed a “complaint” directly with the district court, asking that
court to vacate the bankruptcy court’s order confirming BFP Limited’s second
3
amended plan of reorganization.1 BFP Limited moved to dismiss, arguing that
Greenfield’s “complaint” was untimely, and the district court granted that motion
in November 2004. Greenfield appealed that decision to this Court as well, and we
affirmed in October 2005. See BFP Invs., Inc. v. BFP Invs., Ltd., 150 Fed. Appx.
978 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (“Greenfield II”).
C. This appeal
In December 2004, while both Greenfield I and Greenfield II were pending
before this Court, BFP Limited’s bankruptcy trustee submitted a final report with a
listing of payments and expenditures, along with a motion for a final decree. On
January 25, 2005, the bankruptcy court entered a final decree closing the
bankruptcy case and discharged the bankruptcy trustee.
Greenfield did not appeal the final bankruptcy decree. Instead, in February
2005, Greenfield filed a motion for rehearing. The bankruptcy court denied the
motion for rehearing on March 4, 2005. Greenfield did not appeal from that order
either.
However, on March 24, 2005, Greenfield filed a second motion for
rehearing and reentry of the March 4 order, arguing that order had not been timely
sent to him by opposing counsel, and as such, he was deprived of an opportunity to
1
Greenfield’s “complaint” was filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), the rule governing
motions for relief from judgments.
4
timely appeal. In April 2005, the bankruptcy court held a hearing on Greenfield’s
second motion for rehearing and reentry. On May 5, 2005, the bankruptcy court
denied Greenfield’s second motion for rehearing and reentry.
In July 2005, Greenfield appealed the May 5 order to the district court. On
December 28, 2005, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s May 5 order
that had denied Greenfield’s second motion for rehearing and reentry. In
affirming, the district court emphasized that Greenfield had failed to include a
transcript of the April 2005 bankruptcy court hearing in the record. The district
court also concluded that “even if the record were not deficient, affirmance would
still be in order. Mr. Greenfield’s brief fails to address whether the bankruptcy
court abused its discretion in denying his second motion for rehearing.” The
district court explained that Greenfield’s brief instead raised issues such as the
dismissal of his second amended adversary complaint, the fraud and forgery
allegations he made in that complaint, and the allegedly wrongful approval of BFP
Limited’s second amended plan of reorganization. The district court concluded that
“[t]hose matters . . . have already been resolved adversely to Mr. Greenfield by the
district court and by the Eleventh Circuit in Greenfield I and Greenfield II. The
Eleventh Circuit decisions constitute claim preclusion on those matters.”
Greenfield now timely appeals the district court’s December 28, 2005 order.
5
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Greenfield is challenging the district court’s December 28, 2005
order, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s May 5, 2005 order that had denied
Greenfield’s second motion for rehearing and reentry of the bankruptcy court’s
March 4, 2005 order. The March 4, 2005 order denied Greenfield’s first motion
for rehearing as to the final bankruptcy decree of January 25, 2005.
Greenfield’s appeal has no merit. First, Greenfield’s claims against BFP
Limited’s bankruptcy estate have already been fully litigated. In Greenfield I,
decided in August 2005, we affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order striking and
disallowing Greenfield’s proof of claim against BFP Limited. See Greenfield I,
149 Fed. Appx. at 830. In Greenfield II, decided in October 2005, we affirmed the
district court’s dismissal of Greenfield’s “complaint” seeking to vacate BFP
Limited’s second amended plan of reorganization because the “complaint” was
untimely. See Greenfield II, 150 Fed. Appx. at 979-80. In other words, while
Greenfield has asserted several claims and appeals against BFP Limited in
bankruptcy, those claims and appeals have been fully and finally resolved in BFP
Limited’s favor.
Second, Greenfield never actually appealed the bankruptcy court’s decree
finalizing the accounting of BFP Limited’s estate and discharging the bankruptcy
6
trustee. Here, Greenfield merely appeals the district court’s order affirming the
bankruptcy court’s May 5, 2005 order, which denied his second motion for
rehearing and reentry of the bankruptcy court’s March 4, 2005 order. Even if we
were to permit Greenfield to appeal the March 4, 2005 order, he has no valid claim
against the estate and therefore no legally cognizable interest in the final
accounting of the estate. Thus, Greenfield lacks standing to challenge the final
accounting of the estate.
Accordingly, for these reasons, we affirm the district court’s December 28,
2005 order affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of Greenfield’s second motion
for rehearing and reentry. We deny all pending motions.2
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
2
To the extent that Greenfield has filed both a motion for summary reversal and a
separate motion for sanctions (even though Greenfield’s “Motion for Sanctions” was construed
by the Clerk of the Court as a motion for summary reversal based on BFP Investments Limited’s
failure to file a response brief), we deny both motions.
7