Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Wayne Lyle v. Fulcrum Loan Holdings, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-14218
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: NEW

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-14218 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 25-14218
Non-Argument Calendar

In re: FULCRUM LOAN HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
Debtor.

WAYNE LYLE,
CHUCK CARY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross Appellees,
versus

FULCRUM LOAN HOLDINGS, LLC,
BAY POINT CAPITAL ADVISORS, II, LP,
BAY POINT CAPITAL PARTNERS II, LP,
Defendants-Appellees,
RONALD LAVENTHAL,
Defendant-Appellee-Cross Appellant.
USCA11 Case: 25-14218 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-14218

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-06428-TRJ,
Bkcy No. 23-56114-pwb

Before NEWSOM, LAGOA, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Lyle and Charles Cary appeal from the district
court’s order denying their emergency motions to stay a sale of real
property pending the appeal to the district court of a confirmation
order in a core bankruptcy proceeding. Ronald Leventhal, pro-
ceeding pro se, cross-appeals from the same order. We asked the
parties to address our jurisdiction to review the order and whether
the appeal is now moot.
In their response, Lyle and Carey move to dismiss the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that their appeal is now moot and
was taken from an interim order. Appellee Bay Point Capital Part-
ners II, LP agrees, contending that the district court’s order was an
unappealable interlocutory ruling and that the appeal is moot now
that the auction of the property at issue has occurred. Leventhal
disagrees, contending that the appeal will not become moot until
the bankruptcy court confirms the auction sale. We have consid-
ered all of Leventhal’s filings about the jurisdictional issues, thus
mooting his motion to consolidate his jurisdictional filings.
In bankruptcy cases, our jurisdiction extends to “all final de-
cisions, judgments, orders, and decrees” entered by the district
USCA11 Case: 25-14218 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 3 of 4

25-14218 Opinion of the Court 3

court. 28 U.S.C. §§ 158 (d)(1), 1291. Additionally, there are three
narrow jurisprudential exceptions to the finality requirement—the
collateral order doctrine, the practical finality doctrine, and the
marginal finality doctrine. See Lockwood v. Snookies, Inc. (In re F.D.R.
Hickory House, Inc.), 60 F.3d 724, 725-27 (11th Cir. 1995).
The district court’s order refusing to stay the sale is not final,
as it did not end any bankruptcy proceedings, and it is not immedi-
ately appealable under the narrow exceptions to the finality re-
quirement. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 158 (d), 1291. The order does not
implicate a substantial public interest or an unsettled issue of
national significance, so the collateral order and marginal finality
doctrines do not apply. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247,
1252-55 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that the denial of a motion to stay
is not a final order and is not appealable under the collateral order
doctrine); cf. Feldspar Trucking Co., Inc. v. Greater Atlanta Shippers
Ass’n, Inc., 849 F.2d 1389, 1391-92 (11th Cir. 1988) (holding that a
district court’s refusal to stay its own proceedings is not
appealable); Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 477 n.30
(1978) (noting that the applicability of the marginal finality excep-
tion is limited to “an unsettled issue of national significance”), su-
perseded by rule on other grounds as stated in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker,
582 U.S. 23 (2017). And the order did not decide any rights to the
property at issue or direct its immediate delivery, so the doctrine
of practical finality does not apply. See Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Muk-
amal, 22 F.4th 979, 991-92 (11th Cir. 2022) (explaining that the prac-
tical finality doctrine treats an order as final if it decides the right to
the property in contest, directs immediate delivery of the property,
USCA11 Case: 25-14218 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-14218

and subjects the losing party to irreparable harm if appellate review
is delayed).
Accordingly, Lyle and Carey’s motion to dismiss is
GRANTED and their appeal and Leventhal’s cross-appeal are
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All other pending motions are
DENIED as moot.