In re: Black Diamond Mining Co v.

CourtBankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMarch 19, 2009
Docket08-8038
StatusPublished

This text of In re: Black Diamond Mining Co v. (In re: Black Diamond Mining Co v.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re: Black Diamond Mining Co v., (bap6 2009).

Opinion

ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2009 FED App. 0002P (6th Cir.) File Name: 09b0002p.06

BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

In re: BLACK DIAMOND MINING CO., LLC, ) et al., ) ) Debtors. ) _____________________________________ ) ) Black Diamond Mining Co., LLC, Black ) Diamond Land Co., LLC, FCDC Coal, Inc., ) Martin Coal Processing Corp., Spurlock Energy ) Corp., Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., Wolverine ) Resources, Inc., and King & Spalding LLP, ) ) Appellants, ) No. 08-8038 ) v. ) ) Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, ) ) Appellee. ) )

Filed: March 19, 2009

Before: McIVOR, RHODES, and SHEA-STONUM, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.

____________________

ORDER ____________________

King & Spalding LLP appeals the bankruptcy court’s order of April 29, 2008, denying the debtors’ application to approve its employment. Before the Panel can address the merits of the appeal, we must determine our jurisdiction over the appeal. BN1 Telecommunications, Inc. v. Lomaz

1 (In re BN1 Telecommunications, Inc.), 246 B.R. 845, 848 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2000). For that reason, the Panel requested the parties to be prepared to address jurisdictional issues at oral argument. The Panel has jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments of bankruptcy courts. 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1). The Supreme Court has held that in a civil case, an order disqualifying an attorney is not a final order. Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424, 105 S. Ct. 2757 (1985). The Supreme Court had previously reached this same result for an order denying a motion to disqualify an attorney. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 101 S. Ct. 669 (1981). The Supreme Court has further held that the same result applies to an order disqualifying the defendant’s attorney in a criminal case. Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 259, 104 S. Ct. 1051 (1984). In the bankruptcy context, the Sixth Circuit has held that an order denying an application to appoint counsel is not a final order. Taunt v. Vining (In re M.T.G., Inc.), 403 F.3d 410 (6th Cir. 2005). Based on this authority, the Panel must conclude that the order from which King & Spalding LLP appeals is not a final order. Therefore, the Panel lacks jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

/s/ Leonard Green ___________________________________ Clerk

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

Related

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
449 U.S. 368 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Flanagan v. United States
465 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller Ex Rel. Koller
472 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court, 1985)
Taunt v. Vining (In Re M.T.G., Inc.)
403 F.3d 410 (Sixth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re: Black Diamond Mining Co v., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-black-diamond-mining-co-v-bap6-2009.