Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01073/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01073-0/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

James J. Herte, 

Debtor. 

James J. Herte,

Appellant,

vs.

Archie C. Rasor, et al.,

Appellees. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1073-PHX-MHM 

Bankruptcy no. 2:04-bk-07151-PHX-CGC

ORDER

Appellant has filed notice of appeal from an order entered in the United States

Bankruptcy Court in In re James J. Herte, Bankruptcy Case No. 2:04-bk-07151-PHX-CGC.

Currently before this Court are the following: Debtor/Appellant's motion for leave to appeal

interlocutory order (Doc. 2); and, Appellees' objection to the Debtor/Appellant's motion for

leave to appeal interlocutory order (Doc. 4). This Court has entered a Scheduling Order

setting the briefing schedule in this appeal. (Doc. 6). Appellees have filed a motion requesting

clarification of the Court's Briefing Order. (Doc. 12).

Debtor/Appellant has filed an interlocutory appeal from the Bankruptcy Court's "Under

Advisement Decision Re: Validity of Judgment and Impairment of Homestead" filed on

March 29, 2006 as docket entry no. 61. In this Order, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that

Appellees timely renewed a judgment entered in their favor and against Debtor/Appellant in

Case 2:06-cv-01073-MHM Document 15 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 4
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 -

the Maricopa County Superior Court under the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-1611. The judgment

was entered on August 18, 2000 and renewed on August 18, 2005. The Bankruptcy Court

ruled that this renewal occurred on the five-year anniversary date and was timely under § 12-

1611. In moving for leave to take an interlocutory appeal, Debtor/Appellant contends that the

Bankruptcy Court's ruling was in error and that if Appellant is correct, there would be no need

for further litigation in the Bankruptcy Court regarding Appellees' claim and the case would

become capable of resolution by alternative means.

In their Objection, Appellees contend that the issues the Debtor/Appellant seeks to

address on appeal will not materially advance the litigation and lack any controlling question

of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion. Appellees point out

that the issue of the timeliness of the renewal of the judgment was not the only issue before

the Bankruptcy Court because the Bankruptcy Court found that a factual issue remained as

to the actual value of the property and whether the liens impair Debtor's homestead.

Appellees further point out that the Bankruptcy Court did not intend for the Order to be a final

order and that granting leave to appeal will likely lead to piecemeal litigation. Appellees

argue that the request for leave to appeal filed by Debtor/Appellant fails to satisfy the

standards of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Specifically, Appellees contend that the Debtor/Appellant's

interpretation of A.R.S. § 12-1611 was rejected as unreasonable and not supported by any

case law or reasonable reading of the statute. 

Title 28, United States Code, section 158(a), provides as follows:

(a) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction

to hear appeals

(1) from final judgments, orders, and decrees;

(2) from interlocutory orders and decrees issued under section

1121(d) of title 11 increasing or reducing the time periods

referred to in section 1221 of such title; and

(3) with leave of the court, from other interlocutory orders and

decrees;

Case 2:06-cv-01073-MHM Document 15 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 4
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 -

and, with leave of court, from interlocutory orders and decrees,

of bankruptcy judges entered in cases and proceedings referred

to the bankruptcy judges under section 157 of this title. An

appeal under this subsection shall be taken only to the district

court for the judicial district in which the bankruptcy judge is

serving.

An order may be certified for interlocutory appeal if it involves a controlling question

of law, there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and an immediate appeal from

the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. In re Cement

Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1981). See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Section

1292(b) "is to be applied sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances." United States v.

Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784, 799 n. 11 (9th Cir. 1959). The legislative history indicates that §

1292(b) is reserved for "extraordinary cases where decision of an interlocutory appeal might

avoid piecemeal and expensive litigation". United States Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784,

785 (9th Cir. 1966). Traditional finality concerns dictate that this Court avoid having a case

"make two complete appellate trips through the appellate process." See, e.g., Law Offices of

Nicholas A. Franke v. Tiffany (In re Lewis), 113 F.3d 1040, 1043 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Debtor/Appellant has not shown that there is a substantial ground for a difference of

opinion as to the issues that would be raised on appeal. In the absence of such a showing, the

Court is concerned that this case might make two complete appellate trips through the

appellate process and therefore add to the expense of litigation and result in a waste of judicial

resources. The motion of Debtor/Appellant for leave to appeal interlocutory order (Doc. 2)

is denied. The Briefing Schedule is hereby vacated.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order (Doc. 2)

filed by Debtor/Appellant is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the Briefing Schedule set in the Scheduling

Order (Doc. 6). 

Case 2:06-cv-01073-MHM Document 15 Filed 08/04/06 Page 3 of 4
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 - 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Clarification of Court's Briefing

Order (Doc. 12) is denied as moot. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed.

 DATED this 4th day of August, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01073-MHM Document 15 Filed 08/04/06 Page 4 of 4