Reyes et al v. Brown

Filing 10

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. The opening brief (Doc. 5) is denied. 2. This appeal is dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/11/11. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ) ) ) Daniel R. Reyes, III and ) ) Esmeralda Reyes ) ) Debtors _________________________________) ) ) David Allegrucci, ) ) Appellant ) ) vs. ) ) Russell A. .Brown, ) ) Appellee. ) IN THE MATTER OF No. CV11-0746 PHX DGC BK No. 2:10-BK-17082-GBN ORDER 19 Daniel R. Reyes III and Esmeralda Reyes are petitioners in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy 20 case. The Bankruptcy Court below denied six of Petitioners’ objections and declined to 21 confirm the bankruptcy plan. Doc. 5 at 3. Petitioners appeal the denial of their objections, 22 but do not dispute Appellee’s assertion that the bankruptcy case has not been dismissed and 23 that Petitioners have filed an amended plan that has not yet been ruled upon by the 24 Bankruptcy Court. Doc. 7 at 6-9; Doc. 9 at 3. Petitioners assert that this Court has 25 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (Doc. 5 at 3:12-13) because the order below was 26 final or, in the alternative, that Rule 8002(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 27 permits the early filing of appeals (Doc. 9 at 3). 28 1 The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden to establish jurisdiction. See Indus. 2 Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). Appellants assert 3 jurisdiction pursuant to § 158(a)(1). Doc. 5 at 3:12-13. Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), a 4 federal district court has jurisdiction over appeals “from final judgments, orders, and 5 decrees” in bankruptcy cases. 6 “unchanging,” as Petitioners appear to suggest. See In re Giesbrecht, 429 B.R. 682, 687 (9th. 7 Cir. BAP 2010). The use of the term “final” does not mean merely 8 The Ninth Circuit has held that “the denial of plan confirmation is interlocutory.” Id. 9 A petitioner may appeal a confirmation of a plan after properly preserving objections. See 10 id. at 687-88 (“In this case, the Debtors amended their original plan to accommodate the 11 bankruptcy court’s reasons for denying confirmation of their original plan and then appealed 12 the Confirmation Order. . . . [W]e accept the Confirmation Order as the final order that 13 challenges the Order Denying Confirmation.”). A petitioner may also appeal the dismissal 14 of the petition. Id. Because neither occurred here and, therefore, a final order has not been 15 issued below, § 158(a)(1) is not a valid basis for jurisdiction over this appeal. Moreover, 16 because a final order has not been “announced” below, Rule 8002(a) is inapposite.1 17 IT IS ORDERED: 18 1. The opening brief (Doc. 5) is denied. 19 2. This appeal is dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. 20 DATED this 11th day of August, 2011. 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 Rule 8002(a) provides in part that “[a] notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision or order but before entry of the judgment, order, or decree shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) (emphasis added). -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?