Case ID: f-appx_605/html/0664-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Sachidanand SINHA, Debtor, Sachidanand Sinha, Appellant, v. U.S. Bank N.A., Appellee.
    Nos. 13-60100.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 22, 2015.
    Sachidanand Sinha, Irvine, CA, pro se.
    Jeannette Marsala, Prober and Raphael, Woodland Hills, CA, for Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sachidanand Sinha appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”) order denying his motion for a stay pending appeal of the bankruptcy court’s orders denying his motion for a continuance, and denying his creditor’s motion for relief from the automatic stay. We review de novo our own jurisdiction. Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot Springs), 339 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the BAP’s order denying Sinha’s motion for a stay pending appeal was not a final order. See Dye v. Brown (In re AFI Holding, Inc.), 530 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir.2008) (order) (discussing “pragmatic approach to finality in bankruptcy cases”); see also In re Teleport Oil Co., 759 F.2d 1376, 1377 (9th Cir.1985), overruled on other grounds, Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) (decision not to grant a stay does not conclusively determine controversy).

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