T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

C O R R E C T E D JA N U A R Y 23, 2013 + NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I n r e : R OB E R T J . C AR E Y, D ebt or, R OB E R T J . C AR E Y, A p p e lla n t, v. C H A R L I E Y . I N C ., A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 60021 B A P N o. 10- 1309 ME MOR AN DU M *

A p p e a l f r o m th e N in th C ir c u it B ankrup t cyA pp el l at e P anel K i r s c he r , H ol l ow e l l , a nd D unn, B a nkrupt c yJ udge s , P r e s i di ng

A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r8, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: F A R R IS , F E RN A N D E Z , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED NO V 21 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSS o m e o f o u rd e c is io n s h a v e s u g g e s te dth a t Conne c t i c ut N at i onal B an k v . 1 G e rm a in , 503 U . S . 249, 253 ( 1992) , m a yha ve unde rm i ne d V y le ne byi m pl y i ng th a t th e s ta n d a r d f

o rf in a lityin § 1 5 8 ( d ) ( 1 ) is th e s a m e s ta n d a r da s 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . Se e, e . g. , B ender , 5 8 6 F .3 d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 6 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; L a kesh o re V ill. R e s or t , L td. , 81 F . 3d 103, 105–06 ( 9th C i r . 1996) . S i nc e w e c onc l ude tha tthe B A P ’ s dec i si on w as no tfi nal even un der the m ore f l exi bl e V ylene t e s t , w e ne e d not consi der w hether G e rm a in u n d erm i n es V y le ne . See B ender , 586 F . 3d a t1163–64; L a kesh o re , 81 F . 3d a t105–06. 2 A p p ellan t R o b er t J. C ar ey ap p ea ls fr o m th e B an k ru p tcy A p p ellate P an el’s deci si on vaca t i ng the bank rupt cycourt ’ s di sm i ss al of appel l ee C harl i e Y . ’ s f ee m o t i o n an d rem an d i n g fo r a d et erm i n at i o n o f th e ap p ro p ri at e am o u n to f att o rn eys’ f e e s . W e di s m i s s the appe a l f orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i on be c aus e the B A P ’ s de c i s i on w a s n o t s u f

f ic ie n tlyf in a l. T h i s co u rth as j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er ap p eal s fro m “ al l fi n al d eci si o n s, j u d g m en t s, or de r s , a nd de c r e e s ” e nt e r e d bythe B A P . 28 U . S . C . § 158( d) ( 1) . W e ha ve c onc l ude d tha t“ f

i na l ” f orba nkrupt c ypurpos e s unde r§ 158( d) ( 1) m a ybe in te rp r e te d m o r e f

le x ib lyth a n “f

in a l” u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . See Kles ta d t & W i n ters, L L P v. Ca n g elo si , 6 7 2 F .3 d8 0 9 , 8 1 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 2 ) . T h u s , w e g e n e r a lly appl y the V

ylene f a c to r s to d e te rm in e f

in a lity , w h ic h c o n s id e r : “( 1 ) th e n e e dto

1 a v o idp ie c e m e a l litig a tio n ; ( 2 ) ju d ic ia l e f f ic ie n c y ; ( 3 ) th e s y s te m ic in te r e s t in pres ervi ng the bank rupt cycourt ’ s r ol e a s the fi nd erof fa ct ; and (4) w hether del ay i ng re vi ew w ou l d cause ei ther party i rr epar abl e harm . ” L a kesh o re , 81 F . 3d3

103 a t106 ( c i t i ng In re V ylene E nter

s. , Inc. , 96 8 F . 2d 88 7, 89 5– 96 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 2 )). W e l ackj u ri sd i ct i o n u n d er th ese factors. F i rst , a rem an d t o th e B A P t o d et erm i n e th e ap p ro p ri at e am o u n to f att o rn eys’ f e e s is n o t “ap u r e lym e c h a n ic a l o rc o m p u ta tio n a l ta s k ,” b u t r a th e ris lik e ly“to generat e anew appeal or t o aff ec tthe i ss ue . . . on appeal . ” B ender , 58 6 F . 3d at 11 65 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). C al cul at i ng att orneys ’ fe es w i l l re qu i re the bank rupt cycourtt o con si der num er ou s l egal i ss ues, m any of w hi ch C ar eyhas a l r e a dyr a i s e d on r e m a nd. A s ac ons e que nc e , w e m a ya l s o ne e d t o “ r e vi e w the sam e i ss ue[] i n th[i s] sam e c as e ase cond t i m e. ” L a kesh o re , 81 F . 3d a t107. O ne of th e m ain issu es b ef

o re th is co u rt is w h eth erC h ar li e Y .’ s + “ ge ne r a l c l a i m ” f or att orneys ’ fe es w as pl ed prop er l y. O n rem and, the bank rupt cycourtw i l l al so need t o c ons i de rw he the rf

e e s ge ne r a t e d on appe a l a nd f r om r e l a t e d s t a t e c ourtl i t i ga t i on we r e a l s o p l e d p r o p e r l ys i n c e th i s wa s n o tc o n s i d e r e db e l o w. I n d e e d , th e B AP sugg es t ed thatthe qu es t i on of w hether these addi t i on al fe es w er e pl ed prop er l y w as an ar gu m entthatcoul d b e “ re new ed on re m and. ” S eco n d , d ecl i n i n g t o h ear th e case n o w w i l l p ro m o t e j u d i ci al effi ci en cy. G i ven the po ss i bi l i ty of pi ec em ea l l i t i gat i on , i ncl ud i ng the l i kel i ho od thatsi m i l ar i ss ues w ou l d agai n b e pre se nt ed t o thi s c ou rt , the m ostef fi ci entcourse of cond uct w ou l d b e t o con si der w hether a ll the f e e s w e r e pl e d pr ope r l yi n as i ngl e de c i s i on.4

C a r e y ’ s a r g u m e n tth a tth e l i t i g a t i o n wo u l de n dn o w i f we we r e t o r e v e r s e th e B AP is u n a v a ilin g . See W

al tha l l v. U ni ted States , 13 1 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 93 (9th C i r. 19 97 ). T hi rd, decl i ni ng t o h ear the ca se no w w ou l d n otvi ol at e the bank rupt cy c ourt ’ s r ol e a s pr i m a ryf i nde rof f a c t . I nde e d, i f

w e w e r e t o i ns t e a d he a ra l l the pl ea di ng i ss ues now — i ncl ud i ng w hether the fe es fr om the re l at ed st at e c ou rt proceedi ng w er e properl y pl ed— i n o rdert o avo i d d ec i di ng the sam e i ss ue tw i ce , w e w ou l d i nv ade the bank rupt cycourt ’ s r ol e a s f i nd erof fa ctsi nce i thas notye t c ons i de r e d tha tque s t i on a nd thus ha s notha d a n opportuni tyt o de ve l op the r e c or d. See L a kesh o re , 8 1 F .3 d a t 1 0 7 ; I n r e Sax m an , 3 2 5 F .3 d1 1 6 8 , 1 1 7 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . F i nal l y, decl i ni ng t o h ear the ca se w i l l no tcause i rr epar abl e harm . C ar ey ar gu es he w i l l suff

erfi nanci al hardshi p i f w e di sm i ss because he w i l l have t o p ay for c ost l y l i t i gat i on on an addi t i on al appeal . G i ven the po ss i bi l i ty of pi ec em ea l ap p e a ls , h o w e v e r , th is m a yh ap p e n r e g a r d le s s . M o r e o v e r , litig a tio n c o s ts g e n e r a lly d o n o t q u a lif

ya s irr e p a r ab le h a rm . Se e F. T . C . v . Standard O i l

C o. , 449 U . S . 232, 2 4 4 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ; In re E

xc el Inno vat i on s, Inc. , 5 0 2 F .3 d1 0 8 6 , 1 0 9 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . In sum , the V

ylene fact o rs i n d i cat e th atth e B A P ’ s d eci si o n l ack s fi n al i ty. T hus , w e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o he a rthe appe a l . W e e xpr e s s no vi e w on the m e r i t s of th e B A P ’s d e c is io n . D I S M I S S E D .