Case ID: br_441/html/0465-01.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: The 12 PERCENT FUND I, LLC, Debtor, Roderick McBroom and Thomas G. Junghans, Appellants, v. David M. Reaves, Chapter 11 Trustee; et al., Appellees.
    No. 08-60026.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 26, 2010.
    Roderick R. McBroom, pro se.
    Thomas G. Junghans, pro se.
    David M. Reaves, pro se.
    Bryce A. Suzuki, Esquire, Bryan Cave LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for The 12 Percent Fund I, LLC.
    Michael J. Dailey, Esquire, Arizona Corporation Commission, Legal Division, Phoenix, AZ, for Arizona Corporation Commission.
    Office of the U.S. Trustee, Phoenix, AZ, for United States Trustee/Phoenix.
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Roderick McBroom and Thomas S. Jun-ghans appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP’s”) order dismissing their interlocutory appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order denying their motion to dismiss a chapter 11 bankruptcy case. We review de novo our own jurisdiction and whether a bankruptcy court’s decision is final under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). 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.

The denial of a motion to dismiss a chapter 11 bankruptcy for bad faith is not a final decision over which we have appellate jurisdiction. See id. at 788-91. Moreover, we have no jurisdiction to consider whether the BAP’s exercise of its discretion to decline jurisdiction was proper. See id. at 788.

Appellants’ motions to extend time to file their reply brief are granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted on July 16, 2010.

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