In re: Mohammad Tayarani-Beegham

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. The court issues an Order to Show Cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. If Plaintiff does not, by 10/5/2016, file a written response that demonstrates the basis for this court' s jurisdiction in a manner consistent with the discussion above, the court will dismiss this appeal. No hearing will be held on the Order to Show Cause unless ordered by the court. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 9/28/2016. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2016)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5
6

IN RE:

Case No. 5:16-cv-04920-EJD

MOHAMMAD TAYARANI-BEEGHAM,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Appellant/Debtor.
7
8
9
10

On August 24, 2016, Appellant Mohammad Tayarani-Beegham (“Appellant”) filed a

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Notice of Appeal indicating that he appeals from two bankruptcy court orders: (1) an order

12

granting the Trustee’s motion requiring him to surrender and turn over possession of certain real

13

property, and (2) an order denying his motion to reconsider a request to set an evidentiary hearing

14

on the value of that same property. He also elected to have the appeal heard by the district court.

15

Accordingly, this court functions as an appellate court, and must determine whether it has

16

jurisdiction over this appeal before proceeding further. In re Crystal Props. Ltd., L.P., 268 F.3d

17

743, 755 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that the district court functions as an appellate court in reviewing

18

a bankruptcy court’s decision); Hostler v. Groves, 912 F.2d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 1990).

19

“Jurisdiction over an appeal from an order of a bankruptcy court is governed by 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 158.” In re Frontier Props., Inc., 979 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1992). That statute lists

21

categories of appeals from the bankruptcy court over which the district court may exercise

22

appellate jurisdiction: (1) appeals “from final judgments, orders, and decrees,” (28 U.S.C. §

23

158(a)(1)); (2) appeals from “interlocutory orders and decrees issued under section 1121(d) of title

24

11 increasing or reducing the time periods referred to in section 1121 of such title,” (28 U.S.C.§

25

158(a)(2)); and (3) appeals “with leave of court, from other interlocutory orders and decrees,” (28

26

U.S.C. § 158(a)(3)).

27
28

Here, jurisdiction does not arise under § 158(a)(1) because the orders designated by
1
Case No.: 5:16-cv-04920-EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

Appellant in the Notice of Appeal are not sufficiently final. A decision is considered “final and…

2

appealable where it 1) resolves and seriously affects substantive rights and 2) finally determines

3

the discrete issue to which it is addressed.” In re AFI Holding, Inc., 530 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir.

4

2008) (quoting In re Lazar, 237 F.3d 967, 985 (9th Cir. 2001)). Neither of the orders finally

5

determined the discrete issue of disposition of the property, or even finally decided whether

6

Appellant will ultimately retain possession of the property. Nor does jurisdiction arise under §

7

158(a)(2); indeed, neither order implicates and of the time issues governed by 11 U.S.C. § 1121.

8
9

As to § 158(a)(3), the court is unable to locate along with Appellant’s Notice of Appeal the
motion contemplated by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8004(a)(2). Under these
circumstances, the court finds it appropriate to construe the Notice of Appeal as a motion for leave

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

to appeal. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003. It therefore examines the orders to determine whether they

12

involve “a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference” that,

13

if decided immediately, “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28

14

U.S.C. § 1292(b); see In re Bertain, 215 B.R. 438, 441 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997); see also In re Betta

15

Prods., Inc., No. C 07-04825 WHA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81621, at*3-4, 2007 WL 3023044

16

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2007). No controlling question of law presents on this record, particularly in

17

light of In re Hyman, 967 F.2d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1992) .

18

Accordingly, the court issues an Order to Show Cause why this action should not be

19

dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. If Plaintiff does not, by October 5, 2016, file a

20

written response that demonstrates the basis for this court’s jurisdiction in a manner consistent

21

with the discussion above, the court will dismiss this appeal.

22

No hearing will be held on the Order to Show Cause unless ordered by the court.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 28, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

26
27
28

2
Case No.: 5:16-cv-04920-EJD
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE