  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
iii. SS Farms, LLC v. Sharp (In re SK Foods, LP), 676 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2012)
Issue: Whether the orders of the bankruptcy court, affirmed by the district court, are final appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1).
Holding: The Court held that the orders of the district court (affirming the bankruptcy court) were not final, appealable orders and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court first stated that "'[t]o determine whether a district court order is final, we must look to the nature of the underlying bankruptcy court order. If the underlying bankruptcy court order is interlocutory, so is the district court order affirming or reversing it.' Although the district courts have discretion to consider interlocutory appeals, we do not." The court then noted that a bankruptcy court order is considered final when it "1) resolves and seriously affects substantive rights and 2) finally determines the discrete issue to which it is addressed." The Court found that the order denying removal of the trustee was not a final order under this test. The court distinguished the denial of removal from an order granting a motion to remove a trustee, noting that "when a trustee is removed for cause, such an order alters the status quo ante because the trustee can no longer act in the continued bankruptcy proceedings. [On the other hand], since an order denying removal of the trustee preserves the status quo ante and may be later revisited, such an order is not an appealable final order." The Court then found that the order denying the manager's motion for return of the records and granting the trustee's counter-motion for a determination that he had the right to inspect the records, also did not resolve substantive rights or finally determine a discrete issue. Said the Court: "Reviewing the order on appeal now would not finally determine the issue whether the trustee could use the documents, because the issue of possession and use of the records could arise again in further proceedings-for instance, in a motion for relief from the automatic stay or in a discovery dispute in an adversary proceeding." Lastly, the court found that the motion denying disqualification of the trustee's counsel was also not final.
iv. Klestadt & Winters, LLP v. Cangelosi, 672 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2012)
Issue: Whether the sanctions order was an appealable collateral order.
Holding: The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court first stated: section 1291 of title 28 provides that "federal appellate courts, with certain exceptions not applicable here, 'shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.' A 'final decision' is one that 'ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.' The Supreme Court has construed § 1291 slightly more broadly than its narrow language would suggest, holding that it gives appellate court's jurisdiction over a 'small class' of interlocutory orders that are nevertheless appealable 'final decisions.'. These appealable collateral orders 'must [1] conclusively determine the disputed question, [2] resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and [3] be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.' 'Because collateral jurisdiction requires all three elements, we lack collateral order jurisdiction if even one is not met.'" (citations
©2014 William L. Norton III
