In re: Robert Franklin Van Zandt

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 4/11/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2014)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

Nos. C
C
C
C

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

In re:
Robert Franklin Van Zandt,

13-5948
14-0797
14-1527
14-1528

CW
CW
CW
CW

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

Debtor.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS

11
12

________________________________/

13
14

Debtor Robert Franklin Van Zandt has filed at least ten

15

separate appeals challenging orders of the Bankruptcy Court.

16

Court previously dismissed two of those appeals, which were

17

appeals from interlocutory orders denying motions to dismiss two

18

separate adversary cases in the Bankruptcy Court.

19

13-1513 and 13-1888.

20

Bankruptcy Court and denied the motion to withdraw the reference

21

in four other cases.

22

13-4200. The Court now dismisses four other appeals of

23

interlocutory orders.

24
25

The

See Case Nos.

The Court also affirmed the decisions of the

See Case Nos. 13-0702; 13-1568; 13-2765; and

LEGAL STANDARD
District courts have the discretion to grant leave to appeal

26

interlocutory bankruptcy court orders and may consider a notice of

27

appeal as a motion for leave to appeal.

28

R. Bankr. P. 8003(c).

28 U.S.C. § 158(3); Fed.

In considering whether leave should be

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

an interlocutory order is appropriate when

5

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.

6
7
8

In re Betta

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
DISCUSSION

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

Case Number 13-5948 involves the appeal of the Bankruptcy

11

Court’s order compelling Debtor to appear for a deposition in the

12

adversary proceeding brought by William Parisi.

13

compelling Debtor to appear for a deposition is an interlocutory

14

order.

See In re Roque, 2014 Bankruptcy LEXIS 424, *15 (9th Cir.

15

BAP).

The Court finds that an appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s

16

order compelling Debtor to appear for a deposition fails to meet

17

the standard set out in § 1292(b).

18

notice of appeal in Case Number 13-5948 to be a motion for leave

19

to appeal an interlocutory order and denies the motion.

20

same reasons, the Court GRANTS Appellee William Parisi’s motion to

21

dismiss the appeal.

22

DISMISSES Case Number 13-5948.

23

Docket No. 10.

The order

The Court construes Debtor’s

For the

Accordingly, the Court

Case Number 14-797 involves the appeal of two orders in the

24

same adversary proceeding by Parisi against Debtor: (1) the

25

Bankruptcy Court’s order denying Debtor’s “Motion to Obtain Orders

26

Recognizing that the Order Compelling Defendant to Appear for

27

Deposition is Void as a Matter of Law and an Additional Order

28

Quashing Subpoena” and (2) the Bankruptcy Court’s order granting
2

1

Parisi’s motion to compel Debtor’s deposition and for sanctions.

2

These orders are interlocutory orders, appeals from which do not

3

meet the standard set out in § 1292(b).

4

F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002).

5

notice of appeal in Case Number 14-0797 to be a motion for leave

6

to appeal interlocutory orders and denies the motion.

7

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Case Number 14-0797.

8
9

See In re Markus, 313

The Court construes Debtor’s

Case Number 14-1527 involves an order to show cause regarding
contempt entered by the Bankruptcy Court.

An order to show cause

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

is an interlocutory order.

11

the order does not meet the standard set out in § 1292(b).

12

Court construes Debtor’s notice of appeal in Case Number 14-1527

13

to be a motion for leave to appeal interlocutory orders and denies

14

the motion.

15

The Court finds that an appeal from
The

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Case Number 14-1527.

Case Number 14-1528 involves the Bankruptcy Court’s order

16

imposing civil sanctions against Debtor for violation of the

17

Bankruptcy Court’s order.

18

against a party to ongoing litigation is an interlocutory order.

19

See In re Mack, 2007 Bankruptcy LEXIS 4833, *9 (9th Cir. BAP).

20

The Court finds that an appeal from the order does not meet the

21

standard set out in § 1292(b).

22

notice of appeal in Case Number 14-1528 to be a motion for leave

23

to appeal interlocutory orders and denies the motion.

24

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Case Number 14-1528.

25

An order of civil contempt entered

The Court construes Debtor’s

CONCLUSION

26

For the reasons stated above, the Court dismisses the

27

following appeals, 13-5948; 14-0797; 14-1527; and 14-1528.

28
3

In

1

addition, the Court GRANTS Parisi’s motion to dismiss in Case

2

Number 13-5948 (Docket No. 10).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated:

4/11/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4