Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30491
I n t h e M a t t e ro f: S AM J UDE H OLL OW AY, D e b t o r
KI M S TA NSBURY, A p p ell a n t v. S AM J UDE H OLL OW AY , A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o rt he W e s t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U SD C N o. 6: 09- C V

- 0068
B ef ore K IN G , JO L LY , an d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * The i s s ue i n t hi s appe ali s w he t he rab ank r upt c y c o ur to r de rde nyi ng t he en f orcem e n tof

a set t l em en tagreem en ti s an ap pea l able order f or purp oses of ap pel l ate r evi ew by the di st ri ctcourtan d thi s c ou rt . T h e b an kru ptcy c ou rtorder United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 15, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-30491 Document: 00511050877 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30491

2 di d n otadj u di cat e al lt h e cl ai m s i n t h e adv ersary proc eedi n g, the di st ri ctcourt di d n otgran t le a v e to a pp ealt h e i n t erl ocutory or der, an d the pa rt i es di d n ot obt ai n ce r t i f

i c at i on t o a ppealt he i nt er l oc ut or y o r dert o thi s c our t . Cons e q ue nt l y, t he di st r i c tc our tl ac ked j uri sdi c t i on, as do w e. Th er ef or e, w e di sm i ss t hi s appeal for l a ck of j u ri sd i cti on an dva ca te the distri ct cou rt’ s j u d gm en t. I
. B AC KGR OUND K i m Stan sbu ry (“ S t an sbu ry” ) an d S am H ol l ow ay ( “ H ol l ow ay”) w ere s har e ho l de r s i n t he s am e c o r po r at i o n. I n ex cha ngef o rl o ani ng m o ne y t o t he c o r pora t i o n, St ans bur y r e c e ive d apr o m i s s o r y no t e f r o m t he c o r po r at i o n i n t he am ountof

$3 5 7 , 856. 99; H oll ow ay c os i gned t he not e. O n January 2 , 2008, H o l l o w ayf

i l e d ape t i t i o n f

o rr e l i e f und e rC hap t e r7 of

t he B ank r upt c y Code
. The ba nkr upt c y c o ur ts e tApr i l2 8, 2 00 8, a s t he di s c har ge da t e o f H o l l o w ay ’ s c as e a nd or der ed t hatobj ec t i ons t o di sc hargebe f i l ed by then. N o o bj ec t i ons t o di sc harge w er e f i l ed, and a di sc hargew as ent er ed o n A pril28. Thef o l l o wi n gd a y , S t a n s b u r yf i l e dac o m p l a i n tt o d e t e r m i ne di schargea bi l i t y an d a m ot i on forrel i ef fr om the order. O ver the course of t h ree m on t h s, t h e parti es enga gedi n a ser i es of se t t l em en tneg ot i ati on s. A f t er i ni t i all y r e ac hi ng ag r e e m e nto ve rt he g e ne r alt e r m s o f as e t t l e m e nt , ne go t i at i o ns bet w e e n St ans bury an d H ol l ow ay brok e dow n over a di spu t e concerni n g t h e f orm of t h e set t l em en t , i n parti cul ar w h et h er a co n se n tj u dg m en tw ou l d be en t ered or t h e agr e e m e n t w ou l d be cl assi f i ed as a com prom i se. Th rough ou tt h e enti re set t l em en tneg ot i ati on process , Stan sbu ry’ s c om pl ai n tw as st i l lpen di n g bef ore th e b a n k ru p tcy cou rt. W h en f u rt h er di scussi on s fai l ed to p ro d u ce a n agreem en ton the f orm of th e se ttl em en t, S tan s b u r yf i l eda m oti on to en force th e se ttl em en t ag ree m en t. Case: 09-30491 Document: 00511050877 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30491

3 The bankr upt c y c o ur tde ni e d St ans bur y’ s m o t i o n, f i ndi ng t hatt he r e w as no m e e t i ng o f

t he m i nds o n whet he rac o ns e ntj udg m e ntw o ul d be ent e r e d. W i t ho ut seeki n g l e av e o f

t he c o ur t , St ans bur y f i l e d adir e c ta ppe alo f t he b ank r upt cy court’ s or der t o t h e di st ri ctcourt . T h e di st ri ctcourtaf f i rm ed the ban kru ptcy court’ s or der an d di sm i ssed S t an sbu ry’ s acti on w i t h p rej u di ce. S t an sbu ry t h en ap pea l ed to t h i s c ou rt , bu tnei t h er t h e ban kru ptcy c ou rt n o r t h e di st ri ctcourt c e r tifie dth e is s u e fo ra p p e a l. W e ra i s e d t he q ue s t i o n o f o uro w n j ur i s di c t i o n suasponte andordered s u p p l e me n t a lb r i e f

i n go n t h e i s s u e . A f

t e rr e v i e wi n gt h e s u p p l e me n t a lb r i e fs , we concl u de t h at t h e ban kru ptcy court’ s order i s n ot an ap pea l able ord e r for p u rp ose s of ap p ell a te rev i ew bythe distri ct cou rt or this cou rt. I I
. D I S CUS S I ON D i st ri ctcou rts h ave ap pel l ate j u ri sdi ct i on over “f i n alj u dg m en t s, orders, a n dd e c r e e s ” is s u e db yth e b a n k r u p tc yco u r t. 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 8 (a )(1 ). T h is j uri sdi c t i on i ncl udes i nt er l oc ut or y or der s and dec r ee s w hi c h i thas gr ant ed l eave to a p p e a l. I

d. § 158( a) ( 3)
. Thi s c our t vi ew s f i nal i t y i n bankrupt c y pr oc ee di ngs i n a pract i calan d le ss te ch n i call i gh tt o preserve j u di ci alan d other res ou rces . E ng la n d v . F

DIC (I n reE ng la n d

), 97 5 F. 2d1 16 8, 1 17 1 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 2) (c i t at i o ns o m itt e d). W e h a v e d e te r m in e dth a t “ a n o r d e rw h ic h e n d s ad is c r e te ju d ic ia l u n it i n th e l a rg er case con cl u d es a ba n k ru p tcy p roce ed i n g a n di s a fi n a lj u d gm en t .

. . . Fi nal i t y i n bankrupt c y c as es i s c ont i ngentupon t he c onc l usi on o f an ad versari alproceedi n g w i t h i n t h e b an kru ptcy case, rat h er t h an t h e concl u si on of t h e en ti re liti ga ti on . ” Id
. a t 1 1 7 2 (cita tion s o m itted ). I n t hi s c as e, t he bankr upt c y c our t ’ s or der , w hi l e t r eat ed as a f i nal a p p e a la b le o r d e rb yth e d is t r i c tco u r t, w a s in te r lo c u to r y . See, e . g. , Provi d ers Case: 09-30491 Document: 00511050877 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30491

4 B e n efit L ifeIn s . Co . v . Tid e w a te rG ro u p , In c . (In reTid e w a te rG ro u p , In c .) , 734 F
. 2d794 , 796 –97 ( 11th C i r. 198 4) (h ol di n g t h at th e den i al of a m ot i on t o enfor ce a set t l em en tagreem en ti s not a f i n al , app eal able order)
. I tw as i n t erl ocutory be c aus e , a f

t er i tr ul e d o n t he e nf o r c e ab i l i t y o f

t he s e t t l e m e nta gr e e m e nt , t he b a n k r u p tcy cou rt w a s sti l ll eft w i th an ad ve rsa rypr oce ed i n g, na m ely S t an sbu ry’ s i n i t i alcom p la i n tt o deter m i n e di schargea bl i t y an d h i s m ot i on s e e k in gre lie f fr o m th e d is c h a r g e o r d e r , th a t m u s t b e re s o lv e d
. H avi ng det er m i ned t hatt he bankr upt c y c our t ’ s or derw as i nt er l oc ut or y, w e r e c o gni z e thatif t he b ank r upt c y c o ur tha d g r ant ed l eave t o a ppe al , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tw o ul d hav e had j ur i s di c t i o n. As no t e d a bo ve , i n a ddit i o n t o ha vi ng j uri sdi c t i on o verf

i nalor der s of

bankruptcy cour t s, di st r i c tc our t s have j u ri sdi ct i on over i n t erl ocutory ban kru ptcy court orders w h i ch th ey h ave gran t ed le a v e to a p p e a l. I

d. § 1 5 8 (a )(3). B ankrupt c y Ru l es 8001–8 004 go ver n appealby l eave . Ru l e 8 001(b) p ro v id e s th a t “[a ]n a p p e a l fro m a n in te rlo cu to ryju d g m e n t, o rd e r o r d e cr e e o f a ban kru ptcy j u dg e . . . shallbe t ak en by f i l i n g a n ot i ce of

app eal
. . . accom pa n i ed by a m ot i on f

orl eaveto appeal
. ” R ul e 8003( a) requir es thata m ot i on forl eave t o a ppe alc o nt ai n ast at e m e nto f t he fac t s ne c e s s ar y t o a n und e r s t and i ng o f t he qu est i on s presented by t h e app eal , a st atem en t of t h ose qu est i on s an d t h e reli ef s o ugh t , as t at e m e nto f t he r e as o ns w hy an ap pe al s ho ul d be g r ant e d, a nd ac o py o f th e o r d e r . If

am o tio n fo rle a v e to a p p e a l is n o t file d , b u t a n o tic e o f a p p e a l is t i m e l y f i l e d , “ t he d i s t r i c t c o ur t o r b a nk r up t c y a p p e l l a t e p a ne l m a y g r a nt l eave to ap p ea lor d i rect th a t a m oti on for l ea ve to a p p ea l b e fil ed
. ” F ED . R . B ANKR . P. 800 3(c)
. T h e A dv i sory C om m i t t ee n ot e t o sub sect i on (c) expl ai n s t h at th e di st ri ct Case: 09-30491 Document: 00511050877 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30491

5 c our thas t hre e o pt i ons : ( 1) di r ec tt hata m ot i on be f i l ed; ( 2) gr antl eavet o a ppeal e x c lu s iv e lyo n th e p a p e r s a lr e a d yfile d ; o r(3 ) d e n yle a v e to a p p e a l. H ere , S tan sb u ryf

i l ed a n oti ce of a p p ea lto th e d i stri ct co u rt b u t fa i l edto f i l e a m ot i on f

or l eave to appea l
. N ot h i n g i n t h e rec ord i n di cat es t h at th e di st ri ct co u rt ch ose anyof

t h e t h ree al t erna t ives t h at are san ct i on ed byt h e A dv i sory C om m i t t ee notes w h en such si t u ati on s ari se. In other w ords, t h e rec ord does not
r e ve ala ny di s t r i c tc o ur to r de ra l l o w i ng an ap pe alo r any r e que s tf o rs uc h b y t he p a r tie s . N o rc o u ldt h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p lie d lyg r a n t S ta n s b u r yle a v e to a p p e a l, a fte r th e fa c t, b y s im p lyis s u in garu lin go n th e a p p e a l. S eeC la rk v. Firs t S ta te B a n k ( In R eWh iteB e a u ty V ie w , In c .) , 84 1 F. 2d 52 4, 52 7 ( 3dCi r . 1 98 8) (ho l di ng t h at a di st ri ct court can n ot i m pl i edl y gran t l eave t o app ealby m erely rul i n g on a n app ealbef

ore itf rom t h e ban kru ptcy c ou rt)
. Th eref ore, t h e di st ri ctcourt l a ck ed j u ri sd i cti on , an dw e m u st va ca te i ts j u d gm en t. In a n ye v e n t, w e r e w e to a s s u m e th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a dim p lie d ly g ra n te dlea v e , w e w o u ldstilllac kj u risd iction u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C
. § 1 5 8 (d )(1). U nder28 U
. S. C
. § 158( d) ( 1) , t he c our t s of appeal s have j uri sdi c t i on o ver“ al lf i nal deci si on s, j u dg m en t s, orders an d d ecrees ” i ssuedby the di strict co u rt . F or reasons exp l ai n ed ab ove, in this case, no f i n alorder exi st s, an d w e t h eref ore l ack ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 8 (d )(1 ). See, e . g. , I n reTi d ew ate r , 734 F. 2d at 796–97. W h i l e ot h e r b a se s f

or t h i s c ou rt ’ s exerc i se of app el l ate j u ri sdi ct i on exi st u n der 28 U
. S
. C
. § 15 8( d)( 2) (A) –( B ) , ou r revi ew of the record reveal s that nei t h er t h e ban kru ptcy court n or t h e di st ri ct court cert i f i ed t h i s qu est i on f

or app ealaf

t er determ i n i n g, f

or exam pl e, t h at “ an i m m edi ate appea lf rom t h e j u dg m en t , order or decr ee m ay m ater i al l y ad van ce t h e progress of t h e case orproceedi n g i n w h i ch Case: 09-30491 Document: 00511050877 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30491

6 th e a p p e a l is ta k e n .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 8 (d )(2 )(A)(iii); s e eals o i d. § 1 5 8 (d )(2 )(B )(i). B ecau se w e do n o t h a ve j u ri sdi ct i on un der § 158(d) ( 2) , w e consi der w h eth er th ere are altern a tive ba ses f or jurisd i ctio n t h a t w ou l dall ow u s to revi ew t h e ban kru ptcy c ou rt ’ s i n t erl ocutory or der. Th ere are t w o possibi l i t i es. F i rst , 28 U
. S
. C
. § 1292 (b) , w h en i t s r equ i rem en t s a re sati sf i ed, can p rovi de a court of app eal s w i t h j u ri sdi ct i on t o entert ai n an app ea l from an i n t erl ocutory o r d e ro f ad is tr ic t c o u r t s itt in gin its b a n k r u p tc y a p p e lla te c a p a c ity
. Se eConn. Nat ’l Bank v
. G e r m an , 5 03 U
. S
. 2 49, 2 51– 52 ( 199 2)
. A s noted above, t h e di st ri ct court i n t h i s c ase l acked j u ri sdi ct i on over t h e b a n k ru p t cy court ’ s i n t erl ocutory or der , and even i f

i th ad j uri sdi c t i on, i tfai l ed t o ce r t i f y i t s dec i si on f

orappealas r e quir e d b y § 12 92 (b)
. Thus , § 12 92 (b) do e s no t pr o vi de ab as i s f o rj ur i s di c t i o n. T h e sec on d p ossibl e basi s f or j u ri sdi ct i on i s t h e coll ater al

- order except i on t o t he f i nalj u dg m e ntr ul e e s t ab l i s he d i n Cohe n v . Be nef i c i alI ndus t r i alLo an Co r p ., 337 U
. S. 541, 546 ( 1949)
. I n or dert o b e r evi ew abl e und er t he c oll at er al o r de rdo c t r i ne , an o r de r m us t : ( 1) c o nc l us ive l y de t e r m i ne t he di s put e d q ue s t i o n; ( 2) r e s o lve a n i m po r t anti s s ue c o m pl e t e l y s e pa r at e f r o m t he m e r i t s o f

t he a c t i o n; a n d(3 ) b e e ffe c tiv e l yu n r e v ie w a b le o n a p p e a l fr o m afin a l ju d g m e n t. Wi l lv. Hallock , 5 4 6 U .S . 3 4 5 , 3 4 9 (2 0 0 6 ); se e also Colla teral Con trolCorp . v. D ea l (I n r e C o v ing to n G r a in Co .) , 6 3 8 F
. 2 d1 3 5 7 , 1 3 6 0 ( 5 t h Cir . 1 9 8 1 ) ( a p p l y i n gt he co ll a te ra l-ord e r e x ce p tion to b a n k ru p tcya p p e a ls). H e r e , ho w e ve r , nei t he rt he se c o nd no rt he t hi r d r e quir e m e nti s s at i s f i e d. T h e ban kru ptcy c ou rt ’ s or der cann otbe separated f rom t h e m erit s of

t h e act i on fo ra p p e lla te re v ie w o f th e p r o p o s e ds e tt le m e n t. See, e . g. , I n reTi d ew ate r , 734 F
. 2dat 797 (h ol di n g t h at th e coll ater alorder doct ri n e i s i n ap pl i cabl e t o cases i n volvi n g t h e enfor cem en tof set t l em en tagreem en t s b ecau se “t h e ban kru ptcy Case: 09-30491 Document: 00511050877 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 09- 30491

7 cou rt ord er ca n n ot be sep a ra tedf rom t h e m erits of t h e a cti on f or a p p ell a te review o f the prop osed set t l em en t” )
. Th e coll ater alorder doct ri n e i s al so i nap pl i c ab l e b e c aus e i m m e di at e r e vi e w i s no tne ce s s ar y t o pr o t e c ti m po r t ant i nt e r e s t s . The b ank r upt c y c o ur to r de rde nyi ng t he e nf o r c e m e nto f

t he s e t t l e m e nta gr e e m e ntc an be r e vi e w e d o n ap pe al af t e r e nt r y o f f

i nalj udg m e nt i n t h e ban kru ptcy proc eedi n gs. I I I
. C ONC L US I ON F or t h e reasons st ated abov e, w e concl u de th a t t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot h ave j u ri sdi ct i on ov er the ban kru ptcy c ou rt ’ s or der den yi n g Stan sbu ry’ s m ot i on t o enf or c e t he s et t l em entagr ee m ent , and nei t herdo w e. W e ne ver t hel es s have j u ri sdi ct i on t o requi re t h e di st ri ctcourtt o vacate it s j u dg m en t , w h i ch w e do. See, e . g. , St e e lCo . v. Ci t iz e ns f o ra Bet t e rEnvi ro nm e nt , 5 2 3 U .S
. 8 3 , 9 5 (19 9 8 ); Na t’l B en ev o len t A ss ’ n of th e Ch ris tia n Ch u rc h (D isc ip les of Ch ris t) v. W eil, G ot sh a l & Manges, L L P( In reNat’

lB enevolent A ss’

n of t h e Ch ri st i an Ch u rch (D isc ip les of Ch ris t)) , 3 3 3 F . A p p ’ x8 2 2 , 8 2 8 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ); Ho w eryv. A llsta te Ins. Co. , 2 4 3 F .3 d 9 1 2 , 9 2 1 (5 th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ); Al v i dr e s v. R ey e s Ren o , 180 F. 3d 199, 2 0 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). T h e j u d gm en t of th e dist ri ct cou rt i s VA C A T E D
. T h i s a p p ea l is D I SM I SSED f

o rl ac k o f

s ubj e c tm at t e rj ur i s di c t i o n. St ans bur y s hallb e art he c o s ts o f th is a p p e a l. Case: 09-30491 Document: 00511050877 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/15/2010