In Re: Celsius Network LLC
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:25-cv-06043
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Re: Celsius Network LLC: Judge Hellerstein denied Emil Bailey leave to appeal because settled law controlled and an appeal would prolong the litigation.
Emil Bailey’s request for an interlocutory appeal was denied. The ruling leaves in place the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal of his counterclaims against Mohsin Y. Meghji, the litigation administrator for Celsius Network LLC and its affiliated debtors, and the District Court case was closed.
What happened
In Re: Celsius Network LLC concerns Emil Bailey’s request to appeal part of a bankruptcy case before the case was finished. The Bankruptcy Court had dismissed Bailey’s counterclaims against Mohsin Y. Meghji, the litigation administrator for Celsius Network LLC and its affiliated debtors.
Bailey’s counterclaims alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the counterclaims were barred because Bailey was an unknown creditor who received enough notice of the deadline for filing claims but did not file one on time.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied Bailey’s motion for permission to file an interlocutory appeal. The judge found that the Bankruptcy Court had applied settled law to the facts, that no substantial disagreement over a controlling legal question existed, and that an immediate appeal would only extend the litigation. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.
The detailed version
- In Re: Celsius Network LLC · No. 1:25-cv-06043
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Aug. 25, 2025
Background
Emil Bailey sought permission to file an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the underlying litigation is finished—from a Bankruptcy Court order dismissing his counterclaims against Mohsin Y. Meghji, litigation administrator for Celsius Network LLC and its affiliated debtors.
In the underlying bankruptcy litigation, Meghji filed an adversary proceeding against Bailey on July 12, 2024. The proceeding alleged turnover, fraudulent transfer, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Bailey asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment on December 9, 2024.
The Bankruptcy Court dismissed Bailey’s counterclaims because it found that Bailey was an unknown creditor who received sufficient notice of the bar date, or deadline for submitting claims, but failed to submit a claim on time.
Standard for Interlocutory Appeal
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a court may allow an interlocutory appeal when an order involves a controlling question of law, there is substantial ground for disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation. The opinion states that such permission is reserved for exceptional circumstances and is disfavored in the Second Circuit.
Ruling
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied Bailey’s motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal. The court held that the Bankruptcy Court’s order did not involve a controlling legal question presenting substantial grounds for disagreement. Instead, the order resulted from applying settled law to the facts. The court also held that an immediate appeal would not materially advance the litigation and would only extend it.
The clerk was directed to terminate the open motion, identified as ECF No. 3, and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.