Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02280/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02280-0/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 

Fort Defiance Housing Corporation,

Debtor. _________________________________

Brenda Moody Whinery, Trustee, 

Plaintiff/Appellee, 

vs.

Lodgebuilder, Inc., William Aubrey,

Brenda Todd, 

Defendants/Appellants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-02280-PHX-JAT

Bk. No. 2-05-4534 RTB

Adv. No. 2-06-AP-00911 RTB

ORDER

Before thisCourt isthe appeal of William Aubrey and Brenda Todd of the bankruptcy

court’s refusal to entertain their motion for Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., relief from judgment.

The Court will dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Legal Standard

District courts “have jurisdiction to hear appeals . . . from final judgments, orders, and

decrees . . . of bankruptcy judges entered in cases and proceedings referred to the bankruptcy

judges under section 157 of this title.” 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (2006). 

Once an appeal is filed, the bankruptcy court no longer has jurisdiction to consider

motions to vacate judgment. Gould v. Mut. Life Co. of N.Y., 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir.

Case 2:09-cv-02280-JAT Document 13 Filed 03/22/10 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

1

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 now governs the procedure for Rule 60(b)

“indicative rulings.” However, Rule 62.1 did not become effective until December 1, 2009,

after the date of the bankruptcy court’s ruling. The analysis in this Order would not differ

had the new rule been in effect.

- 2 -

1986). However, the bankruptcy court may “entertain and decide a Rule 60(b) motion after

notice of appeal is filed” if the movant asks the bankruptcy court whether it “wishes to

entertain the motion, or to grant it, and then moves [the district] court, if appropriate, for

remand of the case.” Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d 661, 685 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation

omitted).1

 If the bankruptcy court declines to entertain or grant a Rule 60(b) motion, that

order is interlocutory and not a final determination on the merits. Defenders of Wildlife v.

Bernal, 204 F.3d 920, 930 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Background

On March 9, 2009, the bankruptcy court entered an adversary judgment in favor of

Brenda Moody Whinery and against Aubrey and Todd. Aubrey and Todd appealed.

On September 16, 2009, while the appeal was pending, Aubrey and Todd filed a

“Joint Motion to Dismiss Judgment,” pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), (3), and (4), in the

bankruptcy court. On September 23, 2009, the bankruptcy court ruled it lacked jurisdiction

to consider the Rule 60(b) motion because of the pending appeal.

On September 30, 2009, Aubrey and Todd filed a “Motion for Expedited

Reconsideration” of the bankruptcy court’s denial of their Rule 60(b) motion. On October

19, 2009, the bankruptcy court entered a signed minute entry order denying the motion. In

this order, the bankruptcy court acknowledged that under Ninth Circuit law “while an appeal

is pending, a party seeking to dismiss the order being appealed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 may

ask the trial court to indicate whether it would entertain or grant the motion to dismiss.”

(Doc. #10 at 23.) However, the bankruptcy court determined that Aubrey and Todd’s earlier

motion did not contain “any evidence which would cause this court to change its decision in

this adversary,” and refused to exercise jurisdiction to entertain or grant it. Id. at 24. Aubrey

and Todd brought this appeal.

Case 2:09-cv-02280-JAT Document 13 Filed 03/22/10 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

- 3 -

Discussion

Both parties wrongly classify the bankruptcy court’s denial of the request to entertain

a Rule 60(b) motion as an appealable final order. Whinery is correct that “denials of motions

to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b) are appealable as final orders under 28 U.S.C. §

1291.” (Doc. #9 at 5, citing Jeff D. v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 2004).) But

that is not the posture of this case.

When Aubrey and Todd filed this Rule 60(b) motion with the bankruptcy court, the

matter was currently pending on appeal. Thus, the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to

hear a Rule 60(b) motion, or to deny that motion. Therefore, Jeff D. does not apply.

Here, while the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction, Aubrey and Todd moved to see

if the bankruptcy court would entertain a Rule 60(b) motion. Thus, the bankruptcy court’s

“order declining to entertain or grant a Rule 60(b) motion is a procedural ruling and not a

final determination on the merits.” Bernal, 204 F.3d at 930. 

Because this Court’s appellate jurisdiction over the bankruptcy court is limited to

“final judgments, orders, and decrees” and there has been no such order, this Court lacks

jurisdiction to review this interlocutory order of the bankruptcy court.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that William Aubrey and Brenda Todd’s appeal is DISMISSED for

lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order shall serve as the mandate in this case.

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02280-JAT Document 13 Filed 03/22/10 Page 3 of 3