In re: ACEVEDO et al

Filing 32

Judge Rya W. Zobel: ORDER entered. re 30 Emergency MOTION to Compel the Enforcement of Mandate filed by VICENTE PEREZ ACEVEDO. Because I conclude that none of those precepts applies here, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Urso, Lisa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-11736-RWZ

In re ACEVEDO

ORDER
July 25, 2018

ZOBEL, S.D.J.
Vicente Pérez Acevedo appeals an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Massachusetts (Docket # 30). In that order, the bankruptcy court on
remand dismissed four counts and scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the remaining
two counts. An order which “does not finally determine a cause of action but only
decides some intervening matter pertaining to the cause, and which requires further
steps to be taken in order to enable the court to adjudicate the cause on the merits” is
considered interlocutory, and thus not appealable in the ordinary course. In re Am.
Colonial Broad. Corp., 758 F.2d 794, 801 (1st Cir. 1985); see In re Casal, 998 F.2d 28,
31 (1st Cir. 1993) (order in adversary proceeding not appealable as of right “unless it
ends the entire adversary proceeding ‘on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to
do but enter the judgment.’”). See also Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), made
applicable to adversary proceedings by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7054(a).
District courts may nonetheless review an interlocutory appeal in one of three
ways: the collateral order doctrine; discretionary review under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3); or
1

the Forgay-Conrad doctrine. See, e.g., In re Bank of New England Corp., 218 B.R. 643,
649 & n.8 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 1998). Because I conclude that none of those precepts
applies here, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

_____July 25, 2018
DATE

_

____________/s/Rya W. Zobel__________
RYA W. ZOBEL
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2