Freidberg and Parker v. Flemmer

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 8/31/2011 DENYING appellants' 12 Motion for Leave to file Appeal. This action is TERMINATED. (cc: Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M. Klein; BAP Clerk; and Bankruptcy Clerk - Sacramento) (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

----oo0oo----

10
In re:

NO. CIV. 2:11-1833 WBS

CWS ENTERPRISES, INC.,

(Bankruptcy Court Case No. 0926849-C-11)

11
12
Debtor,
13
14
15

(Adversary Proceeding No. 092686-C)

/
CWS Enterprises, Inc., by
David Flemmer, its Chapter 11
Trustee,

16

Plaintiff,

17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

v.

18

Freidberg & Parker, A Law
Corporation,

19
Defendant.
/

20
21

----oo0oo---22
Defendant Freidberg & Parker (“Freidberg”) seeks leave
23
to file an appeal of the bankruptcy court’s Order Determining
24
Status of Claim.
25
I.

Factual and Procedural Background

26
Freidberg, a former law firm for the debtor, claims a
27
28

1

1

lien on $4,000,000 now held in a blocked bank account.

2

Leave to Appeal at 3:1-3 (Docket No. 1).)

3

the Trustee in the bankruptcy proceeding filed a complaint to

4

determine the validity and extent of the lien.

5

The Trustee also brought an objection to Freidberg’s claim, to be

6

heard in connection with another adversary proceeding involving

7

the debtor.

8

8, 2011, to determine the lien issue.

9

22, 2011, the bankruptcy court read its findings of fact and

(Id. at 3:7-4:19.)

(Mot. for

On October 21, 2009,

(Id. at 3:7-12.)

A one-day trial was held on June
(Id. at 5:1-2.)

On June

10

conclusions of law on the record, noting that “[i]t’s apparent to

11

me that the case is going to wind up paying Mr. Freidberg

12

everything he’s entitled to, and at that point, at this point, we

13

don’t know what that number is.”

14

(Tr. at 17:6-9 (Docket No. 1).)

On June 28, 2011, the bankruptcy court entered the

15

Order Determining Status of Claim, ordering that Freidberg does

16

not have a security interest in the $4,000,000 enforceable

17

against the Trustee, nor was Freidberg entitled to an equitable

18

lien on the bank account.

19

The bankruptcy court explicitly stated that it was not entering a

20

final judgment: “[T]he ruling . . . is interlocutory, in the

21

sense that until I finally resolve the entire adversary

22

proceeding as to all counts and all parties, any decision that’s

23

rendered on a preliminary basis can be revisited.”

24

6; see also id. at 19:21-23 (“I’m open to [reconsideration] at

25

any point that it makes sense.”).)

26
27
28

(Mot. for Leave to Appeal at 5:12-16.)

(Tr. at 4:1-

Freidberg seeks leave to appeal the bankruptcy court’s
Order, arguing that the decision should be considered final and
2

1

that, even if it is interlocutory, this court in its discretion

2

should hear the appeal.

3

II.

Discussion

4

Jurisdiction over an appeal from an order of a

5

bankruptcy court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 158.

6

vests the district courts with jurisdiction to hear appeals “from

7

final judgments, orders, and decrees . . . and with leave of the

8

court, from other interlocutory orders and decrees” issued by the

9

bankruptcy court.

28 U.S.C. §§ 158(a).

That section

Thus, only “final”

10

rulings may be appealed as a matter of right; a party seeking to

11

appeal any other order must seek leave of the district court.

12

re Frontier Props., Inc., 979 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1992).

13

In

A final order is one that “ends the litigation on the

14

merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the

15

judgment.”

16

233 (1945)).

17

does not finally determine a cause of action, but instead decides

18

only an intervening matter and requires further steps to be

19

taken.

20

Id. (citing Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229,
An interlocutory order, in contrast, is one that

In re Eleccion, 178 B.R. 807, 808 (9th Cir. BAP 1995).
The Ninth Circuit has held that finality standards in

21

the context of bankruptcy proceedings warrant flexibility.

22

In re Mason, 709 F.2d 1313, 1317 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[C]ertain

23

proceedings in a bankruptcy case are so distinct and conclusive

24

either to the rights of individual parties or the ultimate

25

outcome of the case that final decisions as to them should be

26

appealable as of right.”); see also In re Victoria Station Inc.,

27

840 F.2d 682, 683 (9th Cir. 1988).

28

3

See

Courts have thus adopted a

“pragmatic approach” to assessing finality that focuses on
1

whether “the decision appealed from ‘effectively determined the

2

outcome of the case.’”

3

(citing In re Martinez, 721 F.2d 262, 265 (9th Cir. 1983)).

4

Specifically, a bankruptcy order may be appealed as a matter of

5

right where it “1) resolves and seriously affects substantive

6

rights and 2) finally determines the discrete issue to which it

7

is addressed.”

8

1990).

9

irreparable harm if the losing party must wait until bankruptcy

In re Frontier Props., 979 F.2d at 1363

Id.; In re Allen, 896 F.2d 416, 418 (9th Cir.

Such an order is deemed final because it “can cause

10

court proceedings terminate before appealing.”

11

F.2d at 418.

12

In re Allen, 896

While not dispositive as to this court’s determination

13

of finality, the bankruptcy judge explicitly stated that his

14

Order was not final and appealable.

15

proceedings will determine the exact amount to which Freidberg is

16

entitled; the Order merely foreclosed the possibility that the

17

amount could be recovered in the form of a security interest or

18

equitable lien in the specific bank account.

The judge noted that further

19

Even assuming the bankruptcy court’s Order finally

20

determined the discrete issue to which it was addressed, the

21

Order did not resolve and seriously affect substantive rights.

22

Freidberg’s entitlement to a lien on specific property does not

23

resolve whether or how much it is entitled to recover from the

24

bankruptcy estate in general.

25

other assets of the estate, which the bankruptcy court noted far

26

exceed the amount owed to Freidberg or any other creditor.

27

Because the bankruptcy court’s Order was interlocutory, not

28

Freidberg may still recover from

4

final, Freidberg can only appeal with leave of this court.
1

“Granting leave [to appeal an interlocutory order] is

2

appropriate if the order involves a controlling question of law

3

where there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and

4

when the appeal is in the interest of judicial economy because an

5

immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination

6

of the litigation.”

7

BAP 1995).

8
9

In re Kashani, 190 B.R. 875, 882 (9th Cir.

Granting leave to appeal would not be appropriate in
this case.

Freidberg has not shown that any difference of

10

opinion exists on the legal issues involved.

11

bankruptcy court will have to decide the amount Freidberg is owed

12

regardless of whether that amount comes from the bank account or

13

from the debtor’s other assets, so judicial economy will not be

14

advanced by an immediate appeal.

15

deny Freidberg’s motion for leave to appeal.

16

Furthermore, the

Accordingly, the court will

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Freidberg’s motion for

17

leave to appeal be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

18

DATED: August 31, 2011

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5