USCA11 Case: 25-12109 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2025 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12109 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

In Re: 700 TRUST, Debtor. ___________________________________ 700 TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

NAPLES PROPERTY HOLDING COMPANY, LLC., NAPLES BEACH CLUB LAND TRUST TRUSTEE, LLC., NAPLES BEACH CLUB PHASE II AND III LAND TRUST TRUSTEE, LLC., NBC CLUB OWNER, LLC., TIDES NOTE ON NOTE LENDER I, LLC., Interested Parties-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 25-12109 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2025 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12109 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-00237-MW-ZCB ____________________

Before BRANCH, LUCK, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Debtor 700 Trust appeals the district court’s order and judg- ment dismissing four consolidated bankruptcy appeals. We lack jurisdiction over the appeal. After 700 Trust filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the Northern District of Florida, it filed four notices of appeal to the district court. The notices challenged five rulings of the bank- ruptcy court: (1) an order to show cause as to why the case should not be transferred or dismissed; (2) an interim order granting relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay; (3) a final order granting stay relief; (4) a memorandum opinion finding that the case should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida; and (5) an order trans- ferring the case to the Middle District. The district court dismissed the appeals for want of prosecution and failure to follow a court order. And after the bankruptcy case was transferred to the Middle District, that bankruptcy court dismissed the case. We issued a jurisdictional question asking the parties to ad- dress whether each of the appealed bankruptcy court orders was final or otherwise appealable. 700 Trust did not respond. Appel- lees, a group of interested parties who appeared in the bankruptcy proceedings, respond that the show-cause order was not an USCA11 Case: 25-12109 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2025 Page: 3 of 4

25-12109 Opinion of the Court 3

appealable order, nor were the memorandum opinion and order transferring the case. As to the stay-relief orders, Appellees argue that the appeals of those orders are now moot because the Chapter 11 case was dismissed. We can review bankruptcy appeals only where both the ap- pealed bankruptcy and district court orders are final or otherwise appealable. Mich. State Univ. v. Asbestos Settlement Tr. (In re Celotex Corp.), 700 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012). Orders transferring bankruptcy cases are not final and appealable. Macon Uplands Ven- ture v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. (In re Macon Uplands Venture), 624 F.2d 26, 27-28 (5th Cir. 1980). We lack jurisdiction over appeals brought by appellants who lack appellate standing, as only a litigant aggrieved by an order may appeal. Wolff v. Cash 4 Titles, 351 F.3d 1348, 1353-54 (11th Cir. 2003). We also lack jurisdiction over moot appeals in which we cannot grant the prevailing party any effectual relief. Neidich v. Salas, 783 F.3d 1215, 1216 (11th Cir. 2015). The dismissal of a bankruptcy case can moot an appeal arising from a debtor’s bankruptcy proceed- ings. Id. Here, we lack jurisdiction over each of the appealed bank- ruptcy rulings. First, the show-cause order is not appealable be- cause that order did not aggrieve 700 Trust, as it merely asked it to address why the bankruptcy case should not be transferred or dis- missed. See Wolff, 351 F.3d at 1353-54. Second, the memorandum opinion and order transferring the case are not final or otherwise appealable rulings. See Macon Uplands, 624 F.2d at 27-28. Finally, USCA11 Case: 25-12109 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 11/28/2025 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-12109

the appeals of the stay-relief orders are moot because the bank- ruptcy case has been dismissed. See Neidich, 783 F.3d at 1216. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic- tion.