NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PANIOLO CABLE COMPANY, LLC, Debtor,

______________________________ MICHAEL KATZENSTEIN, Chapter 11 Trustee, Plaintiff,
and PAU LOA VENTURE, INC., Creditor, Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee,
and SANDWICH ISLES COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Defendant. No. 22

- 1 5670
D.C. No. 1:21

- cv - 00499

- JMS

- WRP

MEMORANDUM *

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

JUN 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CL ERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 9, 2023 * * Honolulu, Hawaii Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Pau Loa Venture, Inc. (“ Pau Loa ”), appeals the district court’s order granting the United States’ motion to quash Pau Loa’s writ of execution. Reviewing the district court’s interpretation of Hawai ’i law de novo , s ee Hilao v. Estate of Marcos , 95 F.3d 848, 851 (9th Cir. 1996) , we affirm.
1. We conclude that we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to
review the district court’s order

. 1 Because the district court quashed the writ of
execution , leaving nothing for the court to resolve in a post

- judgment proceeding,

t his order is a final reviewable decision

. See In re Gugliuzza , 852 F.3d 884, 889

– 90 (9th Cir. 2017) ; United States v. Swenson , 971 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2020)

. 2. The district court prop erly concluded that the priority of the United States’ lien is governed by Chapter 490 of the Hawai’i Revised Statutes (“HRS”), not Chapter 506

. Hawai ’ i law expressly provides that the specific provisions

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

1 We requested supplemental briefing from the parties concerning this Court’s jurisdiction to hear this appeal.3 concerning security interests in fixtures under Ch apter 490 supersede the general provisions concerning security interests in real property under Chapter 506. See HRS § 506

- 1(b) (“Except as otherwise provided in sections 490:9

- 334 and 490:9

- 604 of the Uniform Commercial Code with respect to security inte rests in fixtures, a mortgage which secures future advances . . . shall be superior to any subsequently recorded mortgage . . .

. ”); § 506

- 2 (“Subject to the limitations contained in this chapter and to sections 490:9

- 334 and 490:9

- 604 of the Uniform
Comme rcial Code respecting security interests in fixtures

. . . .” ). A security interest in fixtures is perfected when a financing statement is filed , see § 490:9

- 310(a), and for a transmitting utility, “[t]he financing statement also constitutes a fixture filing as to the collateral indicated in the financing statement which is or is
to become fixtures , ” § 490:9

- 501(b).

T he United States perfected its security interest in the fixtures owned by
Sandwich Isles Communications (“S andwich Isles ”) when it recor ded the March 2,
1998 Mortgage Security Agreement and Financing Statement with the Hawai ’ i
Bureau of Conveyances on October 7, 1998 , as a financing statement of a transmitting utility , and recorded mortgage suppl e ments with the Bureau on July 26, 199 9 , and on July 2, 2001

. § § 490:9

- 310(a), 490:9

- 501(b). This recording happened before the recording of a judgment lien against Sandwich Isles that was4 assigned to Pau Loa

. 2
3

. The district court properly concluded that the United States ’ perfected security interest has priority over the judgment assigned to Pau Loa

. T he United
States’ earlier perfected security interest in Sandwich Isles ’ fixtures has priority over any later encumbrancer or owner of the real property. HRS § 490:9

- 334(e) (1). T he United States’ perfected security interest also takes precedence
over the Pau Loa judgment because that j udgment was “obtained by legal or equitable proceedings after the [United States’] security interest was perfected .”
Id. § 490:9

- 334(e)(3). Finally , the district court did not clearly err in finding that the 1998 Mortgage sufficiently described the collateral serving as security for the
United States’ loans and that Pau Loa’s writ of execution would affect such
collateral.
Pau Loa argues for the first time on appeal that the district court should not have considered lien priority in determining the availability of a writ of execution. This argument was waived. See Smith v. Marsh , 194 F. 3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999)

. Because the United States has a perfected, senior security interest fully encumbering the property that the P au Loa writ of execution would affect, we

2 Michael Katzenstein , the bankruptcy trustee of Paniolo Cable Company, LLC, secured a judgment against S andwich Isles that was recorded with the Bureau on January 2, 2020, and assigned the judgment to Pau Loa on June 17, 2020.5 affirm the district court’s order granting the United Stat es’ motion to quash

. AFFIRMED.