Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06035/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06035-3/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re: THEODORE A. KOLB,

Debtor.

_______________________________________/

ROBERT M. CASSEL, on behalf of this Chapter

11 Estate, and UECKER & ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Liquidating Trustee,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

RUTH H. GLOBERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-6035 SI

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE INTERLOCUTORY

APPEAL 

Defendants have filed a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of the Bankruptcy

Court. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, and have also filed a “conditional” cross-appeal. Defendants wish

to appeal an August 15, 2006 order by Judge Montali of the United States Bankruptcy Court, which

denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration of an earlier order holding that defendants were judicially

estopped from raising a state court probate order as a bar to any liability that they may have for

distributing proceedsfromthe estate. Defendants contend that interlocutory review is warranted because

Judge Montali’s order presents controlling issues of law regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the

“probate exception,” and judicial estoppel. 

The parties agree that 28 U.S.C. § 1292 governs this Court’s analysis of defendants’ motion. The

Ninth Circuit has described the standard of review as follows:

Case 3:06-cv-06035-SI Document 19 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

 The Court makes no finding on the timeliness of plaintiffs’ cross-appeal, which is rendered

moot in light of the disposition of defendants’ motion.

2

When a party seeks a section 1292(b) interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals must

undertake a two-step analysis. First, we must determine whether the district court has

properly found that the certification requirements of the statute have been met. These

certification requirements are (1) that there be a controlling question of law, (2) that there

be substantial grounds for difference of opinion, and (3) that an immediate appeal may

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. If we conclude that the

requirements have been met, we may, but need not, exercise jurisdiction. The second

step in our analysis is therefore to decide whether, in the exercise of discretion granted

us by the statute, we want to accept jurisdiction.

In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982), aff'd sub nom. Arizona v. Ash Grove

Cement Co., 459 U.S. 1190 (1983). The appellant “still has the burden of persuading the court of

appeals that exceptional circumstances justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate

review until after the entry of a final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475

(1978).

The Court concludes that interlocutory review is not warranted. The Court notes that this

litigation has been pending since 1999. An interlocutory appeal will further prolong the proceedings,

and will not necessarily materially advance this litigation due to plaintiffs’ challenge of Judge Montali’s

ruling on the continued operation of the automatic stay.1 Even if the certification requirements were met

here, the Court would exercise its discretion to deny an interlocutory appeal. The Court finds that the

better course is to allow proceedings to continue in the Bankruptcy Court for a resolution of all issues

and development of a fuller record. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendant/appellants’ motion for interlocutory

appeal, and DISMISSES this action. (Docket No. 7).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-06035-SI Document 19 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 2