A Ninth Circuit Primer on Appealing Bankruptcy Remands
In In re Marino, the Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision that remanded the dispute back to the bankruptcy court. The opinion provides a nice summary of the Ninth Circuit’s law on appealing bankruptcy remands. These remands mean further proceedings in the bankruptcy court. And the parties might want to appeal the outcome of those proceedings. So it’s normally better to delay any appeals until after the bankruptcy court resolves the dispute. The court of appeals can then decide all issues that the action presents in a single appeal. Only when the proceedings on remand will be ministerial or technical—and thus highly unlikely to produce another appeal—is the remand order deemed final and appealable.
The bankruptcy proceedings
The debtors in Marino had fallen behind on their home mortgage payments. They eventually abandoned their house, and their loan servicer foreclosed on it. The debtors then filed for bankruptcy and obtained a discharge of the remaining mortgage debt. Despite the discharge and the bankruptcy court’s injunction against further efforts to collect on the debt, the loan servicer continued contacting the debtors. It ultimately sent letters or called them 119 times. This conduct violated the bankruptcy court’s discharge injunction, and the bankruptcy court held the loan servicer in contempt. The bankruptcy court awarded $1,000 per violation—$119,000 in total. But the bankruptcy court declined to award punitive damages, concluding that it lacked the authority to do so.
Both parties appealed to the Ninth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The Panel affirmed the contempt sanction. But it remanded the case to the bankruptcy court on the punitive-damages issue, instructing the court consider whether punitive damages were appropriate. The Panel noted that the bankruptcy court could issue proposed findings and send a recommendation on punitive damages to the district court. Or the bankruptcy court could refer the matter to the district court for criminal contempt proceedings. (The Panel decided some other issues that are irrelevant to the present discussion, which I ignore.)
The loan servicer then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, challenging the contempt sanction and the remand on punitive damages.
The Ninth Circuit on appeals from a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
The Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over the loan servicer’s appeal. Appeals from bankruptcy court decisions first go to either a district court or the circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The courts of appeals then have jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees” entered by the district court or the Panel. The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court or Panel decision is not final when the it remands a case for “factual determinations on a central issue.” The court reasoned that delaying appeals in these circumstances is ultimately more efficient; the court of appeals can review all issues—including those decided on remand—in a single appeal. To do otherwise risks piecemeal appeals from the same bankruptcy dispute.
Granted, some Panel remands are final and appealable. The court of appeals will hear an appeal from a remand for a ministerial or technical task that is unlikely to produce another appeal. (This appears to be a specific application of the more general ministerial/technical exception to the final-judgment rule. See pages 400–402 of this article for more on that exception.) To determine whether a remand is final, the Ninth Circuit considers four factors:
- The need to avoid piecemeal litigation;
- Judicial efficiency;
- The systemic interest in preserving the bankruptcy court’s role as the finder of fact; and
- Whether delaying review would cause either party irreparable harm.
In Marino, every factor weighed in favor of delaying the appeal. The punitive-damages issue that the Panel had remanded to the bankruptcy court was almost certain to be appealed after the bankruptcy court’s decision, regardless of who won. Further, the Panel’s remand expressly provided that the bankruptcy court might engage in further fact finding. And other than the normal costs of litigation, no party would be irreparably harmed by delaying the appeal. The dispute could eventually make its way back to the Ninth Circuit for that court to review all of the issues in a single appeal.
The Ninth Circuit accordingly dismissed the loan servicer’s appeal.
In re Marino, 2020 WL 612816 (9th Cir. Feb. 10, 2020), available at the Ninth Circuit and Westlaw.
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In People ex rel Harrison v. Express Scripts, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that an appeal from a remand order does not automatically stay the remand. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit weighed in on the split over whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski requires a stay after a remand appeal. […]
Continue reading....
In Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner v. Festeryga, the en banc Fifth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) does not bar review of waiver-based remands. In so holding, the court overruled its decision in In re Weaver.
Continue reading....
In City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts, Inc., a divided Fourth Circuit held that a court must stay proceedings—and not process a remand order—if the defendant appeals before the district court can send the remand order to the state court. The majority thought that the rule of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.—particularly as the […]
Continue reading....
In Dubon v. Jaddou, the Fourth Circuit dismissed an appeal from an order remanding a naturalization action to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The court acknowledged that this remand order would be unreviewable in any future proceedings. But it thought that this lack of review was harmless, as the applicant could eventually obtain judicial […]
Continue reading....
In Abraham Watkins Nichols Agosto Aziz & Stogner v. Festeryga, the Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review an order that remanded a removed action because the defendant had waived the right to remove. But the panel doubted that doing so was correct. Indeed, the panel seemed almost certain that its decision was […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
This month’s roundup features two decisions on litigants’ attempts to voluntarily dismiss some of their claims. In one, a defendant filed a written, pretrial notice that it abandoned one of its counterclaims. In another, the parties stipulated to a dismissal, but one defendant did not sign the stipulation. In both cases, the court deemed the […]
Continue reading....
In Gessele v. Jack in the Box Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that when a district court alters its judgment by granting a post-judgment motion, the time to appeal runs from the entry of an amended judgment. Unlike orders denying post-judgment motions, the appeal clock does not start with the order itself.
Continue reading....
In Simmons v. USI Insurance LLC, the Eleventh Circuit held that the purported abandonment of a counterclaim before trial was ineffective and thus precluded appellate jurisdiction. The counterclaim was the only theory of relief that had not been resolved at summary judgment or trial. And in a written notice before trial, the defendant had said […]
Continue reading....
September’s biggest development in federal appellate jurisdiction concerned appeals from denials of anti-SLAPP motions under California law. The Ninth Circuit overruled its longstanding rule that defendants can immediately appeal from these denials via the collateral-order doctrine. But only a week later, the Federal Circuit followed that now-overruled caselaw and heard an anti-SLAPP appeal. It will […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw the Ninth Circuit apply its rule that a minute order can count as a separate document for purposes of starting the appeal clock. The Sixth Circuit explained when it cannot review contract-formation issues in an arbitration appeal. And the Fourth Circuit declined to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over standing and ripeness issues […]
Continue reading....