Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08422/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-08422-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 11:101 Bankruptcy

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re:

REJUVI LABORATORY, INC.,

Debtor

Case No. 19-cv-08422-MMC

Bankruptcy Case No. 18-31069-DM 

ORDER DENYING APPELLANT'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

Re: Doc. No. 2

Before the Court is appellant Rejuvi Laboratory, Inc.'s ("Rejuvi") "Motion for Leave 

to Appeal," filed in the bankruptcy court on December 23, 2019, and transmitted to the 

district court on December 24, 2019.1 Having read and considered the motion,2the Court 

rules as follows.

On September 27, 2018, Rejuvi filed a petition for bankruptcy. On January 9, 

2019, Maria Corso ("Corso") filed a Proof of Claim in the amount of $1,242,240, and 

stated the basis for the claim was a "Personal Injury Judgment in Australia." (See Bankr. 

Case No. 18-31069, Doc. 57 Part 2.) In response, Rejuvi filed an Objection, in which it 

acknowledged an Australian court had entered a default judgment against it, but asserted 

Corso's claim should be disallowed on the ground that, inter alia, "[t]he Australian court 

did not have personal jurisdiction over Rejuvi." (See Bankr. Case No. 18-31069, Doc. 57 

Part 1.) Thereafter, on August 12, 2019, Rejuvi filed a "Brief Regarding Jurisdiction of 

Australian Court," whereby it requested an order disallowing Corso's claim on such 

 

1The matter was reassigned to the undersigned on January 13, 2020.

2No response to the motion has been filed.

Case 3:19-cv-08422-MMC Document 9 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

ground, and Corso filed opposition to such request.

On September 12, 2019, the bankruptcy judge conducted a hearing on Rejuvi's 

request for disallowance, and, on December 9, 2019, following additional briefing by the 

parties, issued an order finding the Australian court had personal jurisdiction over Rejuvi. 

In particular, the bankruptcy judge found Rejuvi had purposefully directed its activities 

toward Australia, that the claim Corso filed in Australia arose out of or related to those 

activities, and that the exercise of jurisdiction in Australia was reasonable.

The bankruptcy judge's order did not, however, find the claim should be allowed. 

Rather, the bankruptcy judge has set a January 23, 2020, status conference for purposes 

of determining how to resolve the outstanding issues presented by the claim and 

objection. (See Bankr. Case No. 18-31069, Doc. 159.) Consequently, the order finding 

the Australian court had personal jurisdiction over Rejuvi is interlocutory in nature.

By the instant motion, Rejuvi seeks leave to appeal that interlocutory order. Leave 

of court is required to appeal an interlocutory order of a bankruptcy court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 158(a)(3).3 Leave to appeal is appropriately granted where an interlocutory order 

"involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for 

difference of opinion" and "an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance 

the ultimate termination of the litigation." See In re Bertain, 215 B.R. 438, 441 (B.A.P. 9th 

Cir. 1997); see also, e.g., Horowitz v. Sulla, 2017 WL 1352211, at *7 (D. Haw. April 11, 

2017) (denying leave to appeal interlocutory order that did not involve "controlling issue 

of law").

Here, to the extent Rejuvi refers to any argument it seeks to raise on appeal, it 

states "the default judgment cannot be recognized by a United States court" because 

Rejuvi's "contacts with Australia are too attenuated to confer personal jurisdiction in [an 

Australian] forum" (see Mot. at 2:12-14), and, in support of the instant motion, relies on 

 

3The one exception to such rule is inapplicable here. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(2)

(allowing appeal without leave of court as to interlocutory orders issued pursuant to 11 

U.S.C. § 1121(d).)

Case 3:19-cv-08422-MMC Document 9 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the declaration of its president, who discusses therein the nature of Rejuvi's operations 

and the types of contacts it has had with Australia. (See Cheng Decl., filed December 

23, 2019.) Under such circumstances, it appears Rejuvi's position is that there are 

insufficient facts to support the findings made by the bankruptcy judge. A challenge to a 

judge's application of law to the facts presented, however, is not the type of challenge 

appropriate for interlocutory appeal. See Novatel Wireless Securities Litig., 2013 WL 

12247558, at 2 (November 19, 2013) (observing interlocutory appeals are reserved for 

"pure, controlling issues of law," not challenges to "the application of law to a particular 

set of facts"). Indeed, Rejuvi has not shown the order it seeks to appeal involves a 

controlling issue of law, much less that any such issue is one as to which there is 

substantial ground for difference of opinion.

Consequently, even assuming an immediate appeal at this time may materially 

advance the resolution of Corso's claim,4 Rejuvi has failed to show leave to appeal at this 

time is appropriate.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to appeal is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2020

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 

4Rejuvi states "the issue of personal jurisdiction is the dominant issue with respect 

to the allowance or disallowance of Corso's claim." (See Mot. at 5:17-18.)

Case 3:19-cv-08422-MMC Document 9 Filed 01/15/20 Page 3 of 3