Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01851/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01851-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Jo A. Jensen-Carter
Appellee
Georgina Yvonne Stephens
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1851

___________

In re: Georgina Yvonne Stephens, *

*

Debtor, *

*

_________________________ *

*

Georgina Yvonne Stephens, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Mary Jo A. Jensen-Carter, Trustee of *

the Bankruptcy Estate of Larry K. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Alexander, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 22, 2006

Filed: February 27, 2006 

___________

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-1851 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013921
1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

-2-

Georgina Y. Stephens appeals the district court’s1

 denial of her motion to bring

an interlocutory appeal after the bankruptcy court reopened her bankruptcy case. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

In bankruptcy matters, we ordinarily have jurisdiction only over final district

court orders, and a district court order is not final unless the underlying bankruptcy

court order is final. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) (in bankruptcy matters, appellate court’s

jurisdiction is limited to “appeals from all final decisions, judgments, orders, and

decrees” of district court); In re Popkin & Stern, 105 F.3d 1248, 1250 (8th Cir. 1997)

(“For purposes of § 158(d), a determination of the district court is not ‘final’ unless

the underlying order of the bankruptcy court is final.” (quoted case omitted)). We

conclude that the bankruptcy court’s order reopening Stephens’s case was not a final

order, as (1) the order only reopened the case, and the bankruptcy court has not yet

addressed the merits of trustee Mary Jo Jensen-Carter’s claim; (2) if the bankruptcy

court ultimately rules in Jensen-Carter’s favor, Stephens can still challenge on appeal

to the district court the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction and Jensen-Carter’s standing;

and (3) a later reversal on the reopening would not require recommencement of the

entire bankruptcy proceeding. See In re Gaines, 932 F.2d 729, 731-32 (8th Cir. 1991)

(setting forth standard for determining finality of bankruptcy court order; concluding

bankruptcy court’s order reopening and extending time for objecting to debtors’

discharge was not final and appealable). We note the district court did not certify its

order for immediate interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), see Connecticut

Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 254 (1992) (§ 158(d) is subject to § 1292(b)

certification procedure); Madsen v. Audrain Health Care, Inc., 248 F.3d 760, 761 (8th

Cir. 2001) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction, absent district court certification

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) or § 1292(b)); and we have found no other basis for

Appellate Case: 05-1851 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013921
-3-

jurisdiction. We deny Stephens’s alternative request to treat her appeal as a petition

for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1851 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2006 Entry ID: 2013921