Cert Grant on Finality of Orders Denying Bankruptcy-Stay Relief
The Supreme Court granted cert this morning in Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC. The case asks whether an order denying relief from a bankruptcy stay is final and appealable.
When a debtor files for bankruptcy, most litigation against that debtor is automatically stayed. But those with claims against the debtor can petition for relief from that stay so they can pursue their claims.
In Ritzen Group, a creditor’s breach-of-contract claim against a debtor was automatically stayed when the debtor filed for bankruptcy. The creditor sought relief from the automatic stay, which the bankruptcy court denied. The creditor did not immediately appeal that decision. It instead pursued its breach-of-contract claim in the bankruptcy court and, after losing, sought to appeal both the denial of relief from the stay and the merits to the district court. The district court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the denial of stay relief.
On further appeal to the Sixth Circuit, the court held that the denial of relief from the stay was a final order entered in a bankruptcy proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), the jurisdictional statute for bankruptcy appeals. The denial was thus final and appealable at the time it was entered. At that point, the creditor could—indeed, had to—appeal the denial of relief. Because it did not do so within the 14-day period for filing a notice of appeal in bankruptcy, its later appeal was untimely. The Sixth Circuit accordingly affirmed the district court’s dismissal the appeal.
The Supreme Court granted cert to decide whether a bankruptcy court order denying relief from an automatic stay is final and thus appealable under § 158(a).
I’m sure I’ll be writing more about this case in the future. For now, here are some helpful links for anyone who want to read up on the case:
- Supreme Court Docket, No. 18-938
- Cert Petition
- Opposition Brief
- Reply Brief
- In re Jackson Masonry, LLC, 906 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2018): Slip Opinion, Google Scholar, Westlaw
- SCOTUSBlog Coverage
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 In re Al Zawawi, the Eleventh Circuit held that a bankruptcy court order recognizing a foreign proceeding is final and thus appealable.
Continue reading....
Appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases can be tricky. The rules governing finality are different. And there’s an an extra tier of intermediate appellate review, with cases first going to a district court or Bankruptcy Appellate Panel before they can reach the courts of appeals. Litigants can skip this extra tier of review and proceed straight […]
Continue reading....
Appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases can get complicated. The rules of finality are different in bankruptcy. And bankruptcy involves an extra tier of intermediate appellate review: litigants initially appeal bankruptcy court decisions to either a district court or a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Litigants can then seek further review in the courts of appeals. As a […]
Continue reading....
In In re Tennial, the Sixth Circuit held that bankruptcy’s 14-day deadline for filing an appeal is not jurisdictional. In doing so, the court split with every other court of appeals to address this issue. The Supreme Court has drawn a fairly clear line between deadlines found in statutes—which are jurisdictional—and those found only in […]
Continue reading....
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 […]
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....