Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01406/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01406-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In Re: THOMAS LEE STEWART,

SR., a/k/a Thomas L. Stewart, a/k/a

Thomas Lee Stewart, a/k/a Tom

Stewart, fods Covenant Construction

& Consulting, Inc., 

 Debtor.

_______________________________

ALBIN JANOWIAK; IRENA

JANOWIAK,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v. 

THOMAS LEE STEWART, SR., a/k/a

Thomas L. Stewart, a/k/a Thomas Lee

Stewart, a/k/a Tom Stewart, fods

Covenant Construction & Consulting,

Inc.,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 07-1406

(D.C. No. 06-CV-2040-WYD)

ORDER

Filed December 20, 2007

Before KELLY, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. The order being appealed is not

Appellate Case: 07-1406 Document: 010197545 Date Filed: 12/20/2007 Page: 1
-2-

final or otherwise immediately appealable because the district court remanded the

matter for significant further proceedings. See Homa Ltd. v. Stone (In re

Commercial Contractors, Inc.), 771 F.2d 1373, 1375 (10th Cir. 1985).

The plaintiffs appeal the order of the district court reversing the entry of

summary judgment in their favor by the bankruptcy court. While they admit that the

order is not final, the plaintiffs argue that there is jurisdiction under the collateral

order doctrine set out in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541

(1949). “The requirements for collateral order appeal have been distilled down to

three conditions: that an order [1] conclusively determine the disputed question, [2]

resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and [3]

be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Will v. Hallock, 546

U.S. 345, 349 (2006) (internal citations and quotations omitted). A district court

order which fails to satisfy all three of these requirements is not reviewable under

Cohen. Mesa Oil, Inc. v. United States, 46 F.3d 1252, 1254 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing

to Gulfstream Aerospce Corp. v. Mayacamas, 485 U.S. 271, 276 (1988)). The class

of cases which meets these criteria is small. “[A]lthough the Court has been asked

many times to expand the ‘small class’ of collaterally appealable orders, we have

instead kept it narrow and selective in its membership.” Will, 546 U.S. at 350.

The plaintiffs argue that the order is effectively unreviewable on appeal

because time, money and judicial resources would be wasted if an unnecessary trial

is held. This contention does not satisfy Cohen.

Appellate Case: 07-1406 Document: 010197545 Date Filed: 12/20/2007 Page: 2
-3-

Since only some orders denying an asserted right to avoid

the burdens of trial qualify, then, as orders that cannot be

reviewed ‘effectively’ after a conventional final judgment,

the cases have to be combed for some further characteristic

that merits appealability under Cohen; and ... that

something further boils down to a judgment about the

value of the interests that would be lost through rigorous

application of a final judgment requirement.

Will, 546 U.S. at 351-52 (internal citation and quotation omitted).

“It is not mere avoidance of a trial, but avoidance of a trial that would imperil

a substantial public interest, that counts when asking whether an order is

‘effectively’ unreviewable if review is left until later.” Id. at 353. “The costs of

unnecessary litigation caused by what eventually turns out to be an error by the

district court is insufficient to warrant an interlocutory appeal.” Mesa Oil, 467 F.3d

at 1255 (citing to Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495, 499 (1989)).

Here, the plaintiffs do not present any interest other than the benefits of

avoiding a possibly unnecessary trial.

The plaintiffs’ request for a remand is denied.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 07-1406 Document: 010197545 Date Filed: 12/20/2007 Page: 3