What was filed recently?

• Monthly Fee Statement / Eleventh Monthly Fee Statement of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, as Attorneys for the Debtors, for Compensation for Services and Reimbursement of Expenses Incurred From July 1, 2026, Through July 31, 2026 Filed by Marshall Scott Huebner on behalf of Spirit Aviation Holdings, Inc.. (Huebner, Marshall)

  Dkt. 1562 · Sep 5, 2026

• Order of U.S. District Court Judge Jesse Furman signed on 9/3/2026. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Ameer Flippin ("Appellant"), proceeding without counsel, filed this interlocutory appeal from an oral ruling in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, In re Spirit Aviation Holdings, Inc., No. 25-11897 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Lane, B.J.), appeal docketed, No. 26-CV-7277 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2026). See ECF Nos. 12. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) and Rule 8004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, an interlocutory appeal of a nonfinal bankruptcy court order "requires leave to appeal by the district court." In re Delaney, 110 F.4th 565, 568 (2d Cir. 2024). In light of Appellant's pro se status, the Court liberally construes the appeal to be (or include) a motion for such leave. In determining whether to grant leave to file an interlocutory appeal from the Bankruptcy Court, a district court must apply the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which requires the moving party to show that the challenged order "(1) involves a controlling question of law; (2) to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (3) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." In re Cross Media Mktg. Corp., No. 03-13901, 2007 WL 2743577, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2007) (cleaned up). Applying these standards here, the Court concludes that Appellant has failed to meet his burden under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) as to the appropriateness of interlocutory review. Appellant fails to explain, among other things, how any legal question raised by the Bankruptcy Court's oral ruling restricting his filings presents "substantial ground for difference of opinion." In re Cross Media Mktg. Corp., 2007 WL 2743577, at *2. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Appellant leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal and DISMISSES his appeal. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case and to mail a copy of this Order to Appellant. SO ORDERED. (ar)

  Dkt. 1561 · Sep 4, 2026

• Notice of Agenda / Agenda for September 9, 2026, Hearing Regarding Motion for Stay filed by Darren S. Klein on behalf of Spirit Aviation Holdings, Inc.. with hearing to be held on 9/9/2026 at 11:00 AM at Videoconference (ZoomGov) (SHL) (Klein, Darren)

  Dkt. 1560 · Sep 4, 2026