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 re : TR UM AN W . THOM PSON, De

btor, TR UM AN W . THOM PSON, De

btor - Appe lla

nt, v. C & W DIVING SER

VIC E S, INC ., R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 14-55512

D.C . No. 3:13-c v-00994-B ENNLS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h 9, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, PAEZ, a nd NGUYEN, C irc u i t Judge s. 

# FIL ED MAR 21 2016 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.C & W Diving Se rvic e s, Inc . c om m e nc e d a n a dve rsaria l proc e e d ing in the c ha pte r 7 ba nkruptc y of its form e r e m ploy e e , Trum an Thom

pson. On C & W ’ s m otion, theba

nkruptc y c ourt issue d sa

nc tions a ga inst Thom

p s on, striking his answe r and dire c ting thec le rk to e nte r de fa ult. Thom

pson a ppe a le d the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s sa nc tions orde r to the distric t c ourt, whic h a ffirm e d. He the n a ppe a le d to this c ourt. “ A lthough ne ithe r party ra ise d the issue of whe the r we have jurisdic tion ove r this a

ppe a l, we m

ust a ddre ss the que stion sua sponte .” H ostle r v . Grov e

s , 912 F.2d 1158, 1160 (9th C ir. 1990). W e dism iss Thom pson’ s a ppe a l for la c k of a ppe lla te jurisdic tion. Se e Brow de r v . Dir., De p’t of C o rr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). B e c a use an orde r awarding sa

n c tions a nd e nte ring de fa

ult is not fina

l until judgm e nt is e nte re d, a

n a ppe a l ge ne ra lly

m ust be dism isse d a s pre m ature whe n it is take n a fte r an

orde r aw arding sa

nc tions a nd e nte ring de fa

u lt but be fore the de te rm i nation of da

m a ge s a nd e ntry of judgm e nt. Bak

e r v . Limbe r , 647 F.2d 912, 915–16 (9th C ir. 1981). At ora l a rgum e nt, Thom

pson c o nc e de d tha

t his a ppe a l from the distric t c ourt wa s pre m ature . Inde e d, Thom pson a p pe a le d from

the ba nkruptc y c ourt orde r “ g ranting Te rm i nating Sa nc tions a nd a n Entry of De fa ult” on Aril 24, 2013, one da

y a fte r the ba

nkruptc y c ourt gra nte d sa nc tions, but ove

r 16 m onths be fore the ba

nkruptc y c ourt e nte re d judgm e nt on Se pte m b e r 11, 2014. -2-Sim ila

rly , he a p p e a l e d the distric t c ourt’ s a dve rse de c ision to this c ourt on M arc h 28, 2014, still ove

r five m onths be fore the ba nkruptc y c ourt e nte re d judgm e nt. None the le ss, a

t ora l a rgum e nt Thom

pson’ s c ounse l a sse rte d tha t we have jurisdic tion to re v ie w the sa nc tions orde r pursua

nt to Bak e r , Ande rson v . Allstate Ins. C o. , 630 F.2d 677 (9th C ir. 1980), a nd Unite d State

s v . Re al Prop. Loc ate d at 475 Martin Lane , 545 F.3d 1134 (9th C ir. 2008). In B ak e r and 4 75 Martin Lane , howe v e r, we ha d jurisdic tion ove r the inte rloc utory orde rs in thosec a s e s be c a use the y m e rge d into fina l judgm e nts from whic h the a ppe lla n ts tim e ly a ppe a le d. Bak e r , 647 F.2d a

t 916; 475 Martin Lane , 545 F.3d a t 1140–41. In Ande rson , we he ld tha t “ judgm e n t s whose fina lity norm a lly would depe nd on a

R ule 54(b) c e rtific ate m ay

be tre at e d a s fina l if re m a ining c la im s subse que n tly hav e be e n fina liz e d, e ve n by

de ve lopm e nts oc c urring a fte r a ppe a l.” Bak

e r , 647 F.2d a

t 916 (c iting Ande rson , 630 F.2d a t 680–81). Thom

pson ne ve r a

ppe a le d from

the fina l judgm e nt, howe ve r, and the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s sa

nc tions orde r wa s not thety pe of pa rtia l judgm e nt “ whose fina l ity norm a lly would depe nd on a R u le 54(b) c e rtific ate .” Id. None of the thre e c a se s a v a ils him . Thom pson’ s c ounse l a lso dire c te d the c ourt to Fe de ra l R ule of Appe lla

te Proc e d ure 4(a )(2) (“ Anotic e of a ppe a l file d a fte r the c ourt a nnounc e s a

de c ision or orde r— but be fore the e ntry

of the judgm e nt or orde r— is tre ate d a s file d on the date

-3-of and a fte r the e ntry .” ). B ut we have he ld tha t R ule 4(a )(2) a llows us to tre at a pre m ature a

ppe a l a s tim e ly

file d only “ whe n ‘ [a ] ll tha

t re m a ine d wa s the c l e rk’ s m iniste ria l ta sk of e nte ring a R u le 58 judgm e nt.’ ” K

e nne dy v . Applause

, Inc
. , 90 F.3d 1477, 1483 (9th C ir. 1996) (quoting In reJ ac k Rale y C onstr., Inc
. , 17 F.3d 291, 294 (9th C ir. 1994)). He re the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s sa

nc tions orde r e xpre ssly c a lle d for C & W

to “ file an d se rve doc um e nts, inc luding a dm issiblee vide n c e , in support of its de fa

u lt prove -up,” thus re se rving a de te rm ination of lia bility and dam a ge s. The re m a ining ta sks we re unlike the “ m iniste ria l ta sk” of e n te ring judgm e nt, K

e nne dy , 90 F.3d at 1483, so R ule 4(a )(2) doe s not pe rm i t us to tre at Thom pson’ s a ppe a l a s tim e ly . DISM I SSE D .

-4-