N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In the M atte r of: B LX GR OUP, INC ., De

btor, TIM OTHY L. B LIXSETH, Appe lla

nt, v. C ARL A. EKLUND, Esquire , C ha pte r 11 Truste e of B LX Group, Inc ., Appe lle e . No. 13-35122 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00042-SEH M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Sam E. Ha ddon, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d August 5, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI, C hie f Judge , a nd PAEZ a

nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED AUG 26 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Appe lla nt Tim othy L. B lixse th a

p p e a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing his a ppe a l of the ba

nkruptc y c o urt’ s orde r c onfirm ing the M odifie d Third Am e nde d Pla

n of Liquida

tion (“ the Pla

n” ) for the B LX Group, Inc . B ankruptc y Esta te (“ the Esta

te ” ). W e a ffirm

the dism issa l of the a

ppe a l . (1) An a

ppe lla nt m ust notic e an a

ppe a l of a fina l ba nkruptc y c o urt orde r within fourte e n da

y s of the orde r’ s e ntry . Fe d. R . B ankr. P. 8002(a ). A ba nkruptc y c ourt orde r is fina l whe re it “ (1) ‘ fina lly de te rm ine s the disc re te issue to whic h it is a ddre s se d,’ an d (2) ‘ re solve s a nd se riously

a ffe c ts substa

n tive rights.’ ” Duc k

or Spradling &

Me tzge r v . Baum Trust (In re P.R.T.C . , Inc .) , 177 F.3d 774, 780 (9th C ir. 1999) (quoting Elliott v . Four Se asons Props. (In re Frontie r Props., Inc .) , 979 F.2d 1358, 1363 (9th C ir. 1992)). Applying this two-prong te st, P.R.T.C . he ld that an orde r a ssigning a

de b t or’ s le ga l c la i m s a ga inst a third pa rty to its la rge st c re d itor wa s “ fina l .” Se eid. at 776–77, 780. The August 30, 2011 Assignm e nt Orde r transfe rring the Esta t e ’ s le ga l c la im s a ga inst B lixse th to theYe llowstoneC lub Liquida ting Trust (“YC LT” ) wa s like wise “ fina l.” Se e id. at 780. Tha t orde r e xpre ssly

de c l are d the a ssignm e nt “ in full forc e and e ffe c t

notwithsta

nding c onfirm ation of a

ny pla n of re orga

niz ation or liquida tion, or a ny dism issa l or c onve rsion of this proc e e d ing to a proc e e ding unde r C ha

pte r 7 of the B ankruptc y

C ode .” Unde r the first P.R.T.C . prong, tha

t 2la

ngua ge “ fina l ly

a s signe d the a sse ts,” i.e . the c la im s, to YC LT, be c a use , e ve n though theba

nkruptc y c o urt re ta ine d jurisdic tion ove r the Esta te ’ s a sse ts, it

“ la c k[e d ] disc re tion . . . to alte r the sc ope of the a ssignm e nt.” Se e id. Additionally , unde r the se c ond P.R.T.C . prong, the Assignm e nt Orde r

“ se riously a ffe c t e d the rights of a ll c re ditors . . . to re c e ive pa y m e nt for the ir c la im s.” Se e id. The c la im s we re a signific ant Esta

t e a s se t. If YC LT is not a ble to re c o ve r on the se c la im s, the Esta te ’ s c re ditors m ay

ne ve r re c e ive m e aningful distributions. Se e id. B lixse th did not a

p p e a l the August 30, 2011 Assignm e nt Orde r; he a

ppe a le d only the M arc h 12, 2012 C onfirm ation Orde r. B e c a u se the August 30, 2011 Assignm e nt Orde r wa s fina l unde r P.R.T.C . and no a ppe a l of tha

t orde r wa s notic e d, B lixse th’ s a ssignm e nts of e rror to tha t orde r are not re vie wa

ble he re . Se e In re P .R.T.C

. , 177 F.3d a

t 780. (2) The distric t c ourt prope rly c onc lude d tha

t B l ixse th doe s not ha

ve a ppe lla te sta nding with re ga

rd to the orde r he did a

p pe a l, the C onfirm ation Orde r, be c a use he wa s not a “ pe rson a ggrie ve d” by tha t orde r. Se e Motor Ve h i c le C asualty C o. v . Thorpe

Insulation C

o. (In reThorpe

Insulation C

o.) , 677 F.3d 869, 884 (9th C i r. 2012) . T he M arc h 12, 2012 C onfirm ation Orde r did not a ssign the c la im s to YC LT; it only

a pprove d the Pla

n, whic h inc orporate d the fina l 3Assignm e nt Orde r by re fe re nc e . B lixse th re pe ate d ly disc la im e d be ing a c re ditor of the E sta te . He is thus a

t m ost a de fe nda nt in a n a dve rsary

proc e e ding, a

nd la c ks a ppe lla te sta nding to c ha lle nge the Pla n in tha t c a pa c ity . Se e Fondille r v . Robe rtson (In re

Fondille r) , 707 F.2d 441, 443 (9th C ir. 1983). M ore ove r, c ontra

ry to wha t B l ixse th a sse rte d at ora l a rgum e nt be fore this C ourt, in thea dve rsary

proc e e ding, B lixse t

h c ould a nd did de fe nd a ga inst YC LT’ s c la im s on the grounds tha t B LX ha d not va lidly

a ssigne d the m to YC LT, a nd obta ine d a

ruling on the

m e rits of tha

t a rgum e nt, a lbe it a

n a dve rse one . (3) Fina lly , B lixse th la c ks a ppe lla te sta n ding with re g ard to the e xc ulpa tion c la use in the Pla

n. Unlikein Blix

s e th v . Ye l low

stone Mountain C

lub, LLC , e t al. , No. 13-35190, the c la use in the B LX Pla

n is na rrow both in its te m pora l sc ope and the pe rsons it c ove rs. B lixse th ha s not shown tha t he is

“ dire c tly and a d ve rse ly a ffe c te d” by

it in a ny wa y , a s he ha s not pointe d to a ny a c tion he ha s or m ight a ffirm ative ly bring tha t would be ba

rre d by the c la use . Se e Thorpe , 677 F.3d a

t 884. Any c ontra c tua l c la im s for attorne y ’ s fe e s B l ixse th m ight bring would pla

i nly be outside the sc ope of the e x c ulpa tion c la u se . The distric t c ourt the re fore prope rly

he ld B l ixse th la c ke d a

ppe lla te sta nding with re ga

rd to the e xc ulpa tion c la use in the Pla

n. AFFIRM E D. 4