[PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-12785 ____________________

In re: LE CENTRE ON FOURTH, LLC, Debtor. ___________________________________________________ WILLIE JACKSON, NINA JACKSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus LE CENTRE ON FOURTH, LLC, LE CENTRE ON FOURTH MASTER TENANT, LLC, AL J. SCHNEIDER CO., U.S. TRUSTEE, USCA11 Case: 20-12785 Date Filed: 11/15/2021 Page: 2 of 27

2 Opinion of the Court 20-12785

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:19-cv-62199-AHS ____________________

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judge: Willie Jackson was traveling in his wheelchair along a street near the Embassy Suites Hotel in downtown Louisville, Kentucky, when he was hit by a hotel valet driver. He suffered severe injuries. Mr. Jackson and his wife sued, in Kentucky state court, several entities connected to the hotel. These entities in- cluded Le Centre on Fourth, LLC (“Le Centre”), the owner of the hotel property, which had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protec- tion before suit was filed against it. During the bankruptcy proceeding, Le Centre filed a dis- closure statement in connection with its proposed reorganization plan. The disclosure statement explained that Le Centre’s Chapter 11 plan included the release not only of Le Centre, but also of re- lated non-debtor parties. The Jacksons’ attorney received an amended version of the disclosure statement and a copy of the USCA11 Case: 20-12785 Date Filed: 11/15/2021 Page: 3 of 27

20-12785 Opinion of the Court 3 plan, which included information about the non-debtor releases. Le Centre did not serve the Jacksons with a specific form of notice required by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, however. A short time later, the bankruptcy court issued a confirmation or- der approving the Chapter 11 plan. After the plan went into effect, Le Centre and two other released entities filed a joint motion to dismiss in the state court action, arguing that the confirmation order barred the Jacksons’ claims against them. The Jacksons asked the bankruptcy court to allow them to proceed nominally against these entities in the state court action to reach the entities’ insurers. The bankruptcy court denied this request. The Jacksons appealed the denial to the district court, which affirmed the bank- ruptcy court’s decision. Now, on appeal, the Jacksons argue that the notice they received concerning Le Centre’s Chapter 11 plan did not satisfy due process. They alternatively argue that the district court erred by upholding the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the confir- mation order barring their nominal claims. After careful consider- ation, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm. We agree with the district court that that the Jacksons received sufficient notice to satisfy due process. We also conclude that the bankrupt- cy court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that the Jacksons could not pursue their nominal claims.

I. BACKGROUND USCA11 Case: 20-12785 Date Filed: 11/15/2021 Page: 4 of 27

4 Opinion of the Court 20-12785

Critical to the issues on appeal are the relationships be- tween Le Centre and two other entities. We first describe these relationships. Then, we turn to the specific facts of this cas