NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: DATABASEUSA.COM LLC, 

Debtor, 

______________________________ 

INFOGROUP, INC., 

Appellant, 

 v. 

DATABASEUSA.COM LLC; EVEREST 

GROUP LLC, 

Appellees.

No. 22-15734 

D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01925-JCM 

MEMORANDUM*

In re: DATABASEUSA.COM LLC, 

Debtor, 

______________________________ 

DATABASEUSA.COM LLC, 

Appellant, 

 v. 

INFOGROUP, INC., 

No. 22-15856 

D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01925-JCM 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

MAY 18 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Appellee, 

and 

EVEREST GROUP LLC, 

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 21, 2023

San Francisco, California

Before: VANDYKE and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and S. MURPHY, III,

**

District Judge.

DatabaseUSA.com filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Infogroup, a creditor, 

moved in the bankruptcy court for authority to pursue avoidance claims on behalf 

of DatabaseUSA.com (“Authority Motion”). The bankruptcy court denied the 

motion, and Infogroup appealed. Despite the bankruptcy court’s order, Infogroup 

filed an adversary complaint to preserve its claims before the limitations period 

expired. DatabaseUSA.com then moved for sanctions against Infogroup for 

violating the bankruptcy court’s order. The bankruptcy court granted the sanctions 

motion and ordered Infogroup to dismiss its adversary complaint and to pay 

** The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy, III, United States District 

Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
3 

attorney’s fees to DatabaseUSA.com. Infogroup appealed the sanctions. The 

district court remanded the bankruptcy court’s order denying Infogroup’s 

Authority Motion for further factfinding on a demand futility issue and dismissed 

the appeal from the award of sanctions for lack of jurisdiction. Infogroup and 

DatabaseUSA.com now cross-appeal those rulings. For the reasons below, we 

hold that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s order.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), “courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of 

appeals from all final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees entered” by district 

courts, which hear appeals from the bankruptcy courts. And when a district court 

“remands for factual determinations on a central issue, its order is not final and we 

lack jurisdiction to review the order.” In re Vylene Enters., Inc., 968 F.2d 887, 895 

(9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). “[W]hen an appeal is taken from a district 

court . . . ruling that remands the case for further proceedings in the bankruptcy 

court,” we apply “a four-factor test” to decide whether we should nonetheless 

exercise jurisdiction over the matter, considering: “(1) the need to avoid piecemeal 

litigation; (2) judicial efficiency; (3) the systemic interest in preserving the 

bankruptcy court’s role as the finder of fact; and (4) whether delaying review 

would cause either party irreparable harm.” In re Gugliuzza, 852 F.3d 884, 894 

(9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).

All four factors weigh against exercising jurisdiction over the district court’s 
4 

nonfinal order. As to the first two factors, review of the district court’s remand of 

the Authority Motion would result in piecemeal litigation and judicial inefficiency. 

The district court remanded the Authority Motion to the bankruptcy court for 

further factfinding on the issue of demand futility. But neither the bankruptcy 

court nor the district court made factual findings on certain elements relevant to 

that issue. Even if we were to review the demand futility issue, we would still 

have to remand for the bankruptcy court to decide the other elements in the first 

instance.

As to the third factor, the bankruptcy court is better situated to decide demand 

futility and the remaining elements in the first instance. Indeed, the bankruptcy court 

held a four-day evidentiary hearing on the Authority Motion. Partial transcripts are 

in the record, but the bankruptcy court that presided over the hearing is better situated 

to determine the issue. See Towers v. Iger, 912 F.3d 523, 528 (9th Cir. 2018)

(“[D]emand futility must be decided by the trial court on a case-by-case basis and 

not by any rote and inelastic criteria.”) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

And under the last factor, we are unconvinced that Infogroup will be 

irreparably harmed without immediate appellate review. The district court 

instructed the bankruptcy court to “determine whether cause exists to toll the statute 

of limitations to permit Infogroup to file the adversary complaint” if it finds “on 
5 

remand that Infogroup can pursue the derivative actions.” Thus, any harm to 

Infogroup caused by the limitations period could be cured by the courts below.

In sum, all four factors disfavor exercising jurisdiction over the district court’s 

order, and we will dismiss the cross-appeals relating to the Authority Motion for 

lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1).

We dismiss the appeal of the sanctions orders for lack of jurisdiction 

because the district court did not issue a final decision regarding sanctions. The 

district court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the sanctions appeals because 

they concerned nonfinal orders of the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, this court

has no decision from the district court to review.1 And because the issue of 

sanctions may be affected by the resolution of the Authority Motion, a decision on 

the merits of the sanctions orders would be premature.

The cross-appeals of the district court’s order as to the Authority Motion and

the sanctions orders are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 158(d)(1).

1 Because we lack jurisdiction over the district court’s order, we do not decide here 

whether the district court correctly found that it lacked jurisdiction over the 

sanctions orders.