UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALI INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-2688

COLD HARBOR ASSOCIATES, L.P.,

Defendant-Appellant.

ALI INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 95-2801

COLD HARBOR ASSOCIATES, L.P.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.

(CA-95-197, BK-94-33996-S)

Argued: April 3, 1996

Decided: May 9, 1996

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Michael Allen Condyles, MALONEY, BARR & HUENNEKENS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. James MacNeill

Nolan, MAYS & VALENTINE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Daniel A. Gecker, Susan Elaine Sieger, MALONEY,

BARR & HUENNEKENS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This is a bankruptcy appeal. ALI, Inc., as sole petitioning creditor,

put Cold Harbor Associates, L.P. (a Virginia limited partnership) into

involuntary bankruptcy under Chapter 11. The bankruptcy court

issued an order for relief, and Cold Harbor appealed to the district

court on several grounds. In the district court Cold Harbor claimed

(for the first time) that because it had twelve or more creditors, it

would take at least three of its creditors to place it into involuntary

bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. § 303(b). Cold Harbor told the district

court that it did not assert the three-petitioner requirement in its

answer because "the actual number of its creditors was not known

until depositions were concluded the day before the scheduled trial"

in bankruptcy court. See Appellant's Supp. Brief at 3. The district

court concluded that "[w]ithout the benefit of factual findings from

the Bankruptcy Court, [it was] unable to rule on whether ALI can

qualify as a sole petitioning creditor." Accordingly, the district court

"remanded [the case] to the Bankruptcy Court for a determination as

to the number of holders of claims against Cold Harbor at the time

the involuntary petition was filed."1 

_________________________________________________________________

1 Apart from the remand on the three-petitioner issue, the district court

affirmed the bankruptcy court by holding (1) that ALI's status as a non-

 2
Notwithstanding the remand to bankruptcy court, Cold Harbor

appealed to this court "those aspects of the District Court Order that

affirmed the Bankruptcy Court Order." See Appellant's Opening Brief

at 5. ALI cross-appealed the portion of the district court order that

remanded for findings on the three-petitioner issue.

After initial briefing we asked the parties for supplemental briefing

on the question whether, in light of In Re The Wallace & Gale Co.,

72 F.3d 21 (4th Cir. 1995), we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

In Wallace & Gale certain parties applied under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)

for leave to appeal the bankruptcy court's interlocutory order to the

district court. The district court remanded the case with the instruction

that the bankruptcy court certify (under a local rule) whether the order

on which appeal was sought warranted immediate review. Certain

parties noticed an appeal to us from the district court's remand order.

We dismissed the appeal, holding that we lacked jurisdiction because

the district court's remand order was neither final nor an appealable

interlocutory order.

ALI argues that the district court's order here may be treated as a

final order because Cold Harbor waived the issue remanded (the

three-petitioner issue) by not raising it before the bankruptcy court.

We, however, do not believe that the order can be considered final.

The district court was aware of ALI's waiver argument but nevertheless believed that a remand for factfinding on the number of creditors

was necessary. As a result, the district court expressly deferred determination of the three-petitioner issue. Under these circumstances, it

would not be appropriate for us to decide the waiver issue (and thus

perhaps the three-petitioner issue) in the first instance. Although we

have no idea at this stage how this subject will or should be resolved,

it at least has the potential to be dispositive of the case.

_________________________________________________________________

recourse creditor did not prevent it from filing the involuntary petition,

(2) that Cold Harbor was generally not paying its debts as they came due,

and (3) that the involuntary petition should not be dismissed either under

section 305(a) of the Bankruptcy Code or on the ground that the petition

was filed in bad faith.

 3
Because the district court's order is, in important part, a remand

order, it is non-final and therefore not appealable. See Wallace &

Gale, 72 F.3d at 24.2 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of

jurisdiction, and we remand the case to the district court with instructions to remand it to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings in

accordance with the district court's remand order. See id. at 25; 28

U.S.C. § 2106.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

_________________________________________________________________

2 We also disagree with ALI's fleeting suggestion that the district

court's order is an appealable interlocutory order under the collateral

order doctrine. "To be reviewable under that doctrine, an order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue

completely separate from the merits of the action and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Wallace & Gale, 72 F.3d at

24 (citations and internal quotations omitted). The remand order here

does not meet this test. The district court expressly deferred a determination of the three-petitioner issue, and the issue would be reviewable on

appeal from a final judgment.

Finally, the district court did not certify this appeal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(b).

 4