Bradley Taggart v. Stuart Brown

Ninth Circuit

Bradley Taggart v. Stuart Brown

575 F. App'x 719

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 22, 2014

Docket12-35781

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 575 F. App'x 719 (Bradley Taggart v. Stuart Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradley Taggart v. Stuart Brown, 575 F. App'x 719 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Defendants-Appellants appeal the district court’s decision reversing the bankruptcy court and remanding for further proceedings. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).

“Our jurisdiction under section 158(d) ... requires a final decision from the district court.” Stanley v. Crossland, Cross-land, Chambers, MacArthur & Lastreto (In re Lakeshore Vill. Resort, Ltd.), 81 F.3d 103, 105 (9th Cir.1996). Considering “(1) the need to avoid piecemeal litigation; (2) judicial efficiency; (3) the systemic interest in preserving the bankruptcy court’s role as the finder of fact; and (4) whether delaying review would cause either party irreparable harm,” id. at 106 (citing Vylene Enters., Inc. v. Naugles, Inc. (In re Vylene Enters., Inc.), 968 F.2d 887, 895-96 (9th Cir.1992)), we hold that the district court’s decision, which remanded to the bankruptcy court for further factual findings, does not constitute a final order under § 158(d). See Cangrejo Invs., LLC v. Mann (In re Bender), 586 F.3d 1159, 1165-66 (9th Cir.2009).

*720 The appeal from the district court is hereby DISMISSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. No costs.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

Defendants-Appellants appeal the district court’s decision reversing the bankruptcy court and remanding for further proceedings. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).

“Our jurisdiction under section 158(d) ... requires a final decision from the district court.” Stanley v. Crossland, Cross-land, Chambers, MacArthur & Lastreto (In re Lakeshore Vill. Resort, Ltd.), 81 F.3d 103, 105 (9th Cir.1996). Considering “(1) the need to avoid piecemeal litigation; (2) judicial efficiency; (3) the systemic interest in preserving the bankruptcy court’s role as the finder of fact; and (4) whether delaying review would cause either party irreparable harm,” id. at 106 (citing Vylene Enters., Inc. v. Naugles, Inc. (In re Vylene Enters., Inc.), 968 F.2d 887, 895-96 (9th Cir.1992)), we hold that the district court’s decision, which remanded to the bankruptcy court for further factual findings, does not constitute a final order under § 158(d). See Cangrejo Invs., LLC v. Mann (In re Bender), 586 F.3d 1159, 1165-66 (9th Cir.2009).

*720 The appeal from the district court is hereby DISMISSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. No costs.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 F. App'x 719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-taggart-v-stuart-brown-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack