In re Robert Franklin Van Zandt

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/1/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2013)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

Nos. C 13-1513 CW
C 13-1888 CW

7
8
9

In re:
Robert Franklin Van Zandt,
Debtor.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS
(Case Nos. 13-1513 and
13-1888)

11
12

Bk. Nos. 12-32655-HLB
12-03183-HLB
12-03184-HLB

________________________________/

13
14

Debtor Robert Franklin Van Zandt has filed four separate

15

appeals challenging orders of the Bankruptcy Court.

16

cases Mr. Van Zandt has filed are appeals from orders denying

17

motions to dismiss two separate adversary cases in the Bankruptcy

18

Court.

19

Docket No. 29.

20

an interlocutory order, there is no direct right of appeal.”

21

Betta Prods., Inc. v. Distributions Sys. & Servs., Inc. (In re

22

Betta Prods.), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81621, *3 (N.D. Cal.).

23

Two of the

See BK No. 12-03183, Docket No. 37, BK No. 12-03184,
“Because an order denying a motion to dismiss is

District courts have the discretion to grant leave to appeal

24

interlocutory bankruptcy court orders and may consider a notice of

25

appeal as a motion for leave to appeal.

26

R. Bankr. P. 8003(c).

27

granted, the Court will look to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

28

Prods., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81621 at *3; In re Sperna, 173 B.R.

28 U.S.C. § 158(3); Fed.

In considering whether leave should be
In re Betta

1

654, 658 (9th Cir. BAP 1994).

2

an interlocutory order is appropriate when

3
4
5
6
7

Pursuant to that section, review of

such order involves a controlling question of law as to
which there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may
materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
The Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court’s orders denying

8

Mr. Van Zandt’s motions to dismiss these adversary proceedings

9

fail to meet this standard.

The Court construes Mr. Van Zandt’s

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Notices of Appeal in Docket Nos. 13-1513 and 13-1888 to be motions

11

for leave to appeal an interlocutory order and denies both

12

motions.

13

13-1888.

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Docket Nos. 13-1513 and

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: 5/1/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2