Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01371/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01371-0/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 re:

Michael Keith Schugg, dba Schuburg

Holsteins, 

Debtor. _________________________________

In re: 

Debra Schugg,

Debtor. _________________________________

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

Appellant, 

vs.

Michael Keith Schugg, dba Schuburg

Holsteins,

Appellee. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-01371-PHX-JAT

ORDER

BK No. 2-04-13226-PHX-GBN

BK No. 2-04-19091-PHX-GBN

(Jointly Administered and Substantively

Consolidated)

Pending before the Court are Appellee Michael Keith Shugg's Motion to Dismiss

Appeal (Doc. # 3) and a Joint Motion to Consolidate Appeals or to Dismiss (Doc. # 47). 

In the present appeal (Civil Docket No. 2:07-cv-01371-JAT) (hereinafter the "First

Appeal"), Appellant Wells Fargo Bank seeks reversal of the Bankruptcy Court's order finding

Appellant liable to the bankruptcy estate for attorney's fees. Believing the First Appeal to

be from an interlocutory order because the amount of fees had not been determined, Appellee

Case 2:07-cv-01371-JAT Document 49 Filed 12/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. # 3). Thereafter, the Bankruptcy Court entered a final order

determining the amount of attorney's fees owed the bankruptcy estate and Appellant filed

another appeal (Civil Docket No. 2:07-cv-01962-JAT) (hereinafter the "Second Appeal"),

which appeal also is pending before this Court. The parties represent that the Second

Appeal, like the First Appeal, addresses only Appellant's liability for attorney's fees and does

not address the amount of the fees awarded. 

In the Joint Motion to Consolidate Appeals or to Dismiss (Doc. # 47), Appellee states

that he withdraws the motion to dismiss filed in response to the First Appeal. The parties

also request that the Court enter an order consolidating the Second Appeal with the First

Appeal. In the alternative, the parties request that the Court enter an order determining that

the First Appeal is procedurally and jurisdictionally sound and dismissing the Second

Appeal. In resolving the pending motions, the Court will not allow Appellee to withdraw the

motion to dismiss filed in response to the First Appeal. Instead, the Court will consider the

motion. 

Appeals from a bankruptcy court may be taken "from all final judgments, orders, and

decrees." 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). Because "certain proceedings in a bankruptcy case are so

distinctive and conclusive either to the rights of individual parties or the ultimate outcome

of the case," the Ninth Circuit has developed a "pragmatic approach" to determine whether

a bankruptcy court order is final. In re Frontier Properties, Inc., 979 F.2d 1358, 1363 (9th

Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Under that approach, a bankruptcy court order that "resolves

and seriously affects substantive rights" or "finally determines the discrete issue to which it

is addressed" is final and, therefore, appealable. Id. (citations omitted). 

In this case, the Court does not find that the bankruptcy court proceedings involving

Appellant's liability for attorney's fees justify application of the "pragmatic approach"

discussed in In re Frontier Properties. Appellant has failed to show that such proceedings

are distinctive insofar as they are different in nature or quality from non-bankruptcy court

proceedings involving similar issues. And, while Appellant argues that the order "resolves

and seriously affects substantive rights," as Appellee notes, many interlocutory decisions

Case 2:07-cv-01371-JAT Document 49 Filed 12/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

The Joint Motion to Consolidate Appeals or to Dismiss (Doc. # 47) will be denied

because dismissal of the First Appeal moots the relief sought. The Court also questions

whether filing in the First Appeal a motion to dismiss the Second Appeal is procedurally

proper. 

- 3 -

affect substantive rights but do not constitute final orders for purposes of appeal.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court's order made subject of the First

Appeal is not a final order and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the First

Appeal. Therefore, the Court will grant Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Doc. # 3).1

Because the First Appeal will be dismissed, the Scheduling Order in the Second

Appeal will stand. To satisfy the Scheduling Order, the parties may re-file in the Second

Appeal the briefs originally filed in the First Appeal or may file new briefs. 

For the foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Appeal (Doc. # 3) is GRANTED and

the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Consolidate Appeals or to

Dismiss (Doc. # 47) is DENIED as moot;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Scheduling Order in Civil Docket No. 2:07-

cv-01962-JAT stands. The parties may re-file therein the briefs originally filed in the First

Appeal or may file new briefs.

DATED this 11th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01371-JAT Document 49 Filed 12/11/07 Page 3 of 3