USCA11 Case: 23-13172 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13172 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

In re: SEAWALK INVESTMENTS, LLC Debtor. _______________________________________________

SKY ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SEAWALK INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Defendant-Appellee. USCA11 Case: 23-13172 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13172

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-01148-TJC ____________________

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Sky Enterprises, LLC (“Sky”) appeals from the district court’s August 29, 2023 order, which affirmed several bankruptcy court rulings but remanded for further consideration of the amount of attorney’s fees to which Sky is entitled as part of its se- cured claim. We asked the parties to address whether we have ju- risdiction to review that order. Upon our review of the record and the response to our jurisdictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. We conclude that the pending attorney’s fees issue is not collateral to the underlying bankruptcy dispute and is instead inter- twined with the merits. The bankruptcy court did not award at- torney’s fees to Sky as a sanction; instead, Sky’s entitlement to at- torney’s fees arises from the mortgage and promissory note that formed the basis of its secured claim. A change in the attorney’s fees amount will thus affect the value of the claim, which was an essential merits issue resolved by the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, the district court’s August 29, 2023 order did not “[end] the litigation on the merits and [leave] nothing for the USCA11 Case: 23-13172 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2024 Page: 3 of 3

23-13172 Opinion of the Court 3

court to do but execute the judgment.” See Mich. State Univ. v. As- bestos Settlement Tr. (In re Celotex Corp.), 700 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012). Nor did the order leave only a “ministerial duty collat- eral to the merits of the action” for the bankruptcy court to per- form on remand. See Miscott Corp. v. Zaremba Walden Co. (In re Mis- cott Corp.), 848 F.2d 1190, 1193 (11th Cir. 1988). We thus lack juris- diction to consider this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1).