TERRY MEANS, District Judge
Pending before the Court is appellant Phillip Shepherd's Motion for Leave to Appeal [doc. # 1-1], filed July 29, 2003. Having carefully considered the motion and the response, the Court concludes that the motion should be DENIED.
The appellee, Shawn K. Brown, titled his response "Answer of Shawn K. Brown, as chapter 11 trustee, to Motion for Leave to Appeal and Brief in Support.
In his motion, the appellant requests leave to file an interlocutory appeal challenging the bankruptcy court's June 27, 2003, order denying the appellant's Motion to Abstain and Dismiss. According to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), "[t]he district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear appealsfrom final judgments . . . and, with leave of the court, from interlocutory orders and decrees, of bankruptcy judges. . . ." Leave to appeal a bankruptcy court's interlocutory order "should be granted only in circumstances [that] justify overriding the general policy of not allowing such appeals." Powers v. Montgomery, No. Civ. A. 3:97-CV-1736-P, 1998 WL 159944, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 1998). In determining whether to grant a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory bankruptcy court order, most courts have adopted the standard set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See Ichinose v. Homer National Bank, 946 F.2d 1169, 1176 (5th Cir. 1991); Powers, 1998 WL 159944, at *2. "To be appealable under this standard, an interlocutory order must: (1) involve a controlling issue of law; (2) present a question upon which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (3) an immediate appeal of this order must materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Powers, 1998 WL 159944, at *2.
"An interlocutory order is `one which does not finally determine a cause of action but only decides some intervening matter pertaining to the cause, and which requires further steps to be taken in order to enable the court to adjudicate the cause on the merits.'" Babin v. Hattier, No. Civ. A. No. 93-4137, 11994 WL 43810, at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 8, 1994) (quoting In re Kutner, 656 F.2d 1107, 1111 (5th Cir. 1981)).
Applying this standard to the appellant's motion for leave to appeal, the Court concludes that, at the very least, the motion fails to show that an immediate appeal of the bankruptcy judge's order will materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Consequently, the Court concludes that the motion for leave should be denied.
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the appellant's Motion for Leave to Appeal [doc. # 1-1] is DENIED.