Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00746/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00746-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE MATTER OF

Daniel R. Reyes, III and

Esmeralda Reyes

Debtors _________________________________

David Allegrucci, 

Appellant

vs.

Russell A. .Brown,

Appellee. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV11-0746 PHX DGC

BK No. 2:10-BK-17082-GBN

ORDER

Daniel R. Reyes III and Esmeralda Reyes are petitioners in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy

case. The Bankruptcy Court below denied six of Petitioners’ objections and declined to

confirm the bankruptcy plan. Doc. 5 at 3. Petitioners appeal the denial of their objections,

but do not dispute Appellee’s assertion that the bankruptcy case has not been dismissed and

that Petitioners have filed an amended plan that has not yet been ruled upon by the

Bankruptcy Court. Doc. 7 at 6-9; Doc. 9 at 3. Petitioners assert that this Court has

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (Doc. 5 at 3:12-13) because the order below was

final or, in the alternative, that Rule 8002(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure

permits the early filing of appeals (Doc. 9 at 3).

Case 2:11-cv-00746-DGC Document 10 Filed 08/11/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Rule 8002(a) provides in part that “[a] notice of appeal filed after the announcement

of a decision or order but before entry of the judgment, order, or decree shall be treated as

filed after such entry and on the day thereof.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a) (emphasis added).

- 2 -

The party asserting jurisdiction has the burden to establish jurisdiction. See Indus.

Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). Appellants assert

jurisdiction pursuant to § 158(a)(1). Doc. 5 at 3:12-13. Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), a

federal district court has jurisdiction over appeals “from final judgments, orders, and

decrees” in bankruptcy cases. The use of the term “final” does not mean merely

“unchanging,” as Petitioners appear to suggest. See In re Giesbrecht, 429 B.R. 682, 687 (9th.

Cir. BAP 2010). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that “the denial of plan confirmation is interlocutory.” Id.

A petitioner may appeal a confirmation of a plan after properly preserving objections. See

id. at 687-88 (“In this case, the Debtors amended their original plan to accommodate the

bankruptcy court’s reasons for denying confirmation of their original plan and then appealed

the Confirmation Order. . . . [W]e accept the Confirmation Order as the final order that

challenges the Order Denying Confirmation.”). A petitioner may also appeal the dismissal

of the petition. Id. Because neither occurred here and, therefore, a final order has not been

issued below, § 158(a)(1) is not a valid basis for jurisdiction over this appeal. Moreover,

because a final order has not been “announced” below, Rule 8002(a) is inapposite.1

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The opening brief (Doc. 5) is denied. 

2. This appeal is dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction.

DATED this 11th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00746-DGC Document 10 Filed 08/11/11 Page 2 of 2