Rajinder Kumar Jawa et al v. Jason Rund

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Percy Anderson: [T]he Court hereby orders Appellants to show cause, in a written Response not to exceed ten (10) pages and filed no later than January 11, 2016, why their appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdi ction. In their Response, Appellants may elect to show that the challenged order is "final" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). In this case, Appellee may file a Reply no later than January 19, 2016. In the alternative, Appellants may file a noticed motion for leave to appeal from an interlocutory order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c). (cr)

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

CV15-3470 PA
USBC Central District of California Los Angeles,
2:13-bk-25539-ER (BAP)

Title

Rajinder Kumar Jawa, et al. v. Jason Rund

Present: The
Honorable

Date

December 21, 2015

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes Kerr

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Before the Court is an appeal filed by Rajinder Kumar Jawa and Debra Lynn Jawa (collectively
“the Jawas” or “Appellants”). The Jawas challenge an order issued by the United States Bankruptcy
Court on April 13, 2015 granting in part and denying in part the Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion to require
the Jawas to appear and show cause why (1) they should not be held in contempt of court and sanctioned
under 11 U.S.C. § 105, (2) they should not be sanctioned under the Bankruptcy Court’s inherent
authority for their bad faith conduct, and (3) they should not be incarcerated if they failed to timely pay
non-exempt funds plus attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Jawas commenced a voluntary, joint Chapter 7 bankruptcy case on June 13, 2013.
(Supplemental Excerpt of Record (“SER”), Ex. 4.) On September 26, 2013, the Trustee, Jason Rund
(the “Trustee”), objected to the Jawas’ claimed exemptions in certain insurance policies and annuities.
(SER, Ex. 8.) The Trustee requested an order to turn over the non-exempt surrender value of these
assets. (Id.) The Jawas did not oppose the Trustee’s request. On November 6, 2014, following a
hearing, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Trustee’s request, in part, and ordered the turnover of a
portion of the non-exempt values of these assets by January 30, 2015. (SER, Ex. 2.)
The Jawas did not move for reconsideration of the Turnover Order and did not file a notice of
appeal. Nor did they turn over the assets as required. On February 13, 2015, the Trustee filed his
motion for an order to show cause regarding sanctions. (SER, Ex. 3.) The Bankruptcy Court issued the
order to show cause on February 25, 2015. (SER, Ex. 10.) The Jawas filed a Response on March 13,
2015. (SER, Ex. 12.) The Jawas explained their failure to comply with the Turnover Order by noting
that Mr. Jawa had been “out of the country on family business” for “a number of weeks” and that
drafting errors by their previous attorney warranted modification of the Turnover Order. (Id.)
Following a hearing on March 31, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered its tentative ruling, which
included findings of fact and conclusions of law. (SER, Ex. 15.) The Court found that its Turnover
Order was a definite order and that the Jawas failed to comply. (Id. at 798.) The Court decided that
“stringent sanctions” were appropriate under 11 U.S.C. § 105. (Id. at 800.) In its April 13, 2015 order,
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

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

CV15-3470 PA
USBC Central District of California Los Angeles,
2:13-bk-25539-ER (BAP)

Title

Date

December 21, 2015

Rajinder Kumar Jawa, et al. v. Jason Rund

the Court held the Jawas in civil contempt for willful failure to comply with the Turnover Order and
ordered the following sanctions: $4,066.11 (85% of the non-exempt value of an Ameriprise Life
Insurance account ending -3439 1004), $9,254.57 (85% of the non-exempt value of an Ameriprise Life
Insurance account ending -6465 2004), $10,979.31 (85% of the non-exempt value of an Ameriprise Life
Insurance account ending -6451 3004), and legal fees totaling $15,147.22. (SER, Ex. 1.) The Court
ordered that the Jawas’ payment of the “Insurance Sanctions” portion of this order “will be credited
toward the respective outstanding balances owed under the Turnover Order.” (Id.) The Jawas appeal
the April 13, 2015 order.
In their Opening Brief, the Jawas state that this Court has jurisdiction to hear their appeal based
on 28 U.S.C. § 158(b). This is incorrect. Subsection 158(b) provides for the establishment of the
bankruptcy appellate panel service; it makes no provision for the district courts’ appellate jurisdiction.
However, subsection 158(a) provides as follows:
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;
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. An appeal under this
subsection shall be taken only to the district court for the judicial district
in which the bankruptcy judge is serving.
A civil contempt order is generally not a “final judgment, order, [or] decree.” See Oliner v.
Kontrabecki, 305 B.R. 510 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (“Orders of civil contempt entered against a party during
the course of a pending civil action are not generally appealable until final judgment.”). Thus, it is not
clear that subsection (a)(1) applies. Nor does subsection (a)(2) apply. Moreover, leave to appeal under
subsection (a)(3) “‘should not be granted unless refusal would result in wasted litigation and expense,
the appeal involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference
of opinion, and an immediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of the
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

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

CV15-3470 PA
USBC Central District of California Los Angeles,
2:13-bk-25539-ER (BAP)

Title

Date

December 21, 2015

Rajinder Kumar Jawa, et al. v. Jason Rund

litigation.’” In re Carinalli, No. C–10–2698 MMC, 2010 WL 4226730, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2010)
(quoting In re NSB Film Corp., 167 B.R. 176, 180 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1994)). It is not readily apparent
from the current record that these elements are satisfied.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders Appellants to show cause, in a written
Response not to exceed ten (10) pages and filed no later than January 11, 2016, why their appeal should
not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In their Response, Appellants may elect to show that the
challenged order is “final” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). In this case, Appellee may file a Reply
no later than January 19, 2016. In the alternative, Appellants may file a noticed motion for leave to
appeal from an interlocutory order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
cc:

United States Bankruptcy Judge Ernest M. Robles

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3