Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04920/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-04920-1/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

Case No.: 5:16-cv-04920-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE:

MOHAMMAD TAYARANI-BEEGHAM,

Appellant/Debtor.

Case No. 5:16-cv-04920-EJD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On August 24, 2016, Appellant Mohammad Tayarani-Beegham (“Appellant”) filed a 

Notice of Appeal indicating that he appeals from two bankruptcy court orders: (1) an order 

granting the Trustee’s motion requiring him to surrender and turn over possession of certain real 

property, and (2) an order denying his motion to reconsider a request to set an evidentiary hearing 

on the value of that same property. He also elected to have the appeal heard by the district court. 

Accordingly, this court functions as an appellate court, and must determine whether it has 

jurisdiction over this appeal before proceeding further. In re Crystal Props. Ltd., L.P., 268 F.3d 

743, 755 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that the district court functions as an appellate court in reviewing 

a bankruptcy court’s decision); Hostler v. Groves, 912 F.2d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 1990). 

“Jurisdiction over an appeal from an order of a bankruptcy court is governed by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 158.” In re Frontier Props., Inc., 979 F.2d 1358, 1362 (9th Cir. 1992). That statute lists 

categories of appeals from the bankruptcy court over which the district court may exercise 

appellate jurisdiction: (1) appeals “from final judgments, orders, and decrees,” (28 U.S.C. § 

158(a)(1)); (2) appeals from “interlocutory orders and decrees issued under section 1121(d) of title 

11 increasing or reducing the time periods referred to in section 1121 of such title,” (28 U.S.C.§ 

158(a)(2)); and (3) appeals “with leave of court, from other interlocutory orders and decrees,” (28 

U.S.C. § 158(a)(3)). 

Here, jurisdiction does not arise under § 158(a)(1) because the orders designated by 

Case 5:16-cv-04920-EJD Document 7 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:16-cv-04920-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

Appellant in the Notice of Appeal are not sufficiently final. A decision is considered “final and...

appealable where it 1) resolves and seriously affects substantive rights and 2) finally determines 

the discrete issue to which it is addressed.” In re AFI Holding, Inc., 530 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir. 

2008) (quoting In re Lazar, 237 F.3d 967, 985 (9th Cir. 2001)). Neither of the orders finally 

determined the discrete issue of disposition of the property, or even finally decided whether 

Appellant will ultimately retain possession of the property. Nor does jurisdiction arise under § 

158(a)(2); indeed, neither order implicates and of the time issues governed by 11 U.S.C. § 1121.

As to § 158(a)(3), the court is unable to locate along with Appellant’s Notice of Appeal the 

motion contemplated by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8004(a)(2). Under these 

circumstances, the court finds it appropriate to construe the Notice of Appeal as a motion for leave 

to appeal. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8003. It therefore examines the orders to determine whether they 

involve “a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference” that, 

if decided immediately, “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(b); see In re Bertain, 215 B.R. 438, 441 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997); see also In re Betta 

Prods., Inc., No. C 07-04825 WHA, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81621, at*3-4, 2007 WL 3023044 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2007). No controlling question of law presents on this record, particularly in 

light of In re Hyman, 967 F.2d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1992) . 

Accordingly, the court issues an Order to Show Cause why this action should not be 

dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. If Plaintiff does not, by October 5, 2016, file a 

written response that demonstrates the basis for this court’s jurisdiction in a manner consistent 

with the discussion above, the court will dismiss this appeal. 

No hearing will be held on the Order to Show Cause unless ordered by the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-04920-EJD Document 7 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 2