In re: Continental Coin Corporation

Filing 22

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: On 12/30/2013, this Court issued an order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction 19 . The order to show cause directed appellant Nancy Ho ffmeier Zamora, the bankruptcy trustee ("Trustee"), to file her response to the order no later than 1/13/2014. Trustee did not file a timely response to the order to show cause. The Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court's 9/18/2013 Order is not a final judgment, order, or decree. Nor does it appear that Trustee has obtained leave of court to pursue an interlocutory appeal of that order. As a result, a party must ordinarily waituntil a final judgment to appeal a discovery sanction. The Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over the appeal of the 9/18/2013 Order. The Court therefore dismisses this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) Court Reporter: None. (gk)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-7417 PA

Date

Title

January 14, 2014

In re Continental Coin Corp.
Bankruptcy No. 1:00-bk-15821 GM; Adversary No. 1:07-ap-01291 GM

Present: The
Honorable

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul Songco

None

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS — COURT ORDER

On December 30, 2013, this Court issued an order to show cause why this appeal should not be
dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The order to show cause directed appellant Nancy
Hoffmeier Zamora, the bankruptcy trustee (“Trustee”), to file her response to the order no later than
January 13, 2014. The order to show cause warned Trustee that the failure to file a response by that date
may result in the dismissal of the this appeal. Trustee did not file a timely response to the order to show
cause.
Trustee’s appeal in this matter challenges the Bankruptcy Court’s September 18, 2013 Order
resolving a Motion for Terminating Sanctions or Alternative Sanctions and for Fees and Costs filed by
Rodger Virtue (“Virtue”) in an adversary proceeding currently pending in the Bankruptcy Court. The
Bankruptcy Court’s September 18, 2013 Order denied Virtue’s request for terminating sanctions against
Trustee but imposed a lesser monetary sanction of $4,105.51 against Trustee for discovery violations.
Trustee filed a Notice of Appeal and elected to have the appeal heard by the District Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158. Section 158 provides:
(a)

CV-90 (06/04)

The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to
hear appeals
(1)
from final judgments, orders, and decrees;
(2)
from interlocutory orders and decrees issued under
section 1121(d) of title 11 increasing or reducing
the time periods referred to in section 1121 of such
title; and
(3)
with leave of the court, from other interlocutory
orders and decrees;

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-7417 PA

Date

Title

January 14, 2014

In re Continental Coin Corp.
And, with leave of the court, from interlocutory orders and
decrees, of bankruptcy judges entered in cases and
proceedings referred to the bankruptcy judges under
section 157 of this title.

28 U.S.C. § 158.
The Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court’s September 18, 2013 Order is not a final
judgment, order, or decree. See Johnny Pflocks, Inc. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 634 F.2d 1215,
1216 (9th Cir. 1980) (“Discovery orders and sanctions in the nature of civil penalties are normally
deemed interlocutory and thus nonappealable by the parties.”); see also Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V.
v. KXD Tech., Inc., 539 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2008). Nor does it appear that Trustee has obtained
leave of court to pursue an interlocutory appeal of that order. As a result, a party must ordinarily wait
until a final judgment to appeal a discovery sanction. Id. at 1217 (granting motion to dismiss appeal for
lack of jurisdiction and holding that “a party may not appeal this type of discovery order prior to final
judgment”); see also Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V., 539 F.3d at 1046 (noting that “defendants will
have the opportunity to appeal the sanctions imposed after a final judgment”).
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over the appeal of
the September 18, 2013 Order. The Court therefore dismisses this appeal for lack of appellate
jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2