IN RE: AMR CORPORATION (2019)

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Lawrence M. Meadows, pro se, appeals from a district court judgment that affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders enforcing a plan and confirmation order—in AMR Corporation's Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition—against Meadows and denying reconsideration. The district court prohibited him from seeking any further relief against American Airlines (“American”) based on conduct that arose prepetition, directed him to dismiss his pending actions against American, and required him to communicate about all matters concerning his litigation exclusively with American's outside counsel. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“A district court's order in a bankruptcy case is subject to plenary review, meaning that this Court undertakes an independent examination of the factual findings and legal conclusions of the bankruptcy court.” In re Cacioli, 463 F.3d 229, 234 (2d. Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the bankruptcy court's conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. In re Vebeliunas, 332 F.3d 85, 90 (2d Cir. 2003).

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough March 2, 2018 order. As to Meadows's challenge to the order directing that he speak only to American's outside counsel about his litigation, his characterization of the order on appeal is overbroad. The bankruptcy court's order barred him only from speaking with American employees about his “pending litigation matters” and expressly provided that it did not “prohibit Meadows from contacting American to the extent he is permitted to do so in connection with his prior employment, nor [did] it limit his conduct in his position as founder of the Disabled Pilots Foundation or in any other similar organization.” App'x at 1602.

We have considered all of Meadows's arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.