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 : M OHAM M AD REZA SALEHI, De

btor, GLOB AL AUTOM OTIVE GR OUP, INC ., Appe lla

nt, v. M OHAM M A D RE ZA SALEHI, Appe lle e . No. 14-60040 B AP No. 13-1171 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc u it B ankruptc y Appe lla te Pane l T ay lor, Jury , a

nd Kurtz , B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre s iding Subm itte d

M ay 10, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : NOONAN, W

ARD LAW , a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED MAY23 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).A re v ie w of the re c o rd a nd Globa l Autom otive Group, Inc . ’ s (“ Globa l” ) re sponse to this c ourt’ s M arc h 23, 2016, order to show c a use de m onstra

te tha t our c ourt la c k s jurisdic tion ove r this a ppe a l. W e have “

jurisdic tion of a

ppe a ls from

a ll final de c i sions, judgme nts, orde rs, a n d de c re e s” of the B ankruptc y Appe l late Pane l (“ B AP” ). 28 U.S.C . § 158(d) (e m pha sis a dde d). The B AP de c ision tha t Globa l a ppe a ls is not fina

l or a ppe a la ble within the m e aning of § 158(d). C o n se q ue ntly , this a ppe a l is dism

isse d for la c k of jurisdic tion. 1. In 2012, M o h am

m a d R e z a Sa le hi (“ Sa le h i” ) file d a volunta ry pe t ition for C ha pte r 7 ba nkruptc y . Globa l, whic h wa s Sa le hi’ s la rge st c re ditor, file d a c om pla i nt for de nia l of disc h arge a bility , an d subse que ntly

am e nde d it. Global a lle ge d tha

t Sa le hi ha d c onc e a le d, de stroy e d, m utila te d , fa lsifie d, or fa ile d to ke e p ne c e ssa ry busine ss re c o rds, so thede bt wa s nondisc ha rge a ble unde r 11 U.S.C . § 727(a )(3). Globa l a lso a lle ge d tha t Sa le hi ha d

fa ile d to e xpla in sa

tisfa c torily

any loss of a sse ts or de fic i e nc y of a sse ts to m e e t his lia

bilitie s, so thede bt wa s nondisc ha

rge a ble unde r 11 U.S.C . § 727(a )(5). The ba nkruptc y c o urt found tha

t undispute d fa c t s prove d Globa l’ s a lle gations a

nd e nte re d sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Globa l . The B AP re ve rse d. It found tha

t ge nuine dispute s of m ate ria l fa c t pre c lude d the e ntry of sum m ary judgm e nt on e ithe r of Globa l’ s c la im s. The se dispute s inc lude d whe the r Sa le hi’ s 2re lationship with two a utom obile de a le rships wa s of a nature that would m ake him re sponsiblefor m a inta i ning the ir busine ss re c ords; whe the r to c re dit the de c la ra tion of Globa l’ s c ounse l tha

t Sa le hi ha d dispose d of “ 60 or so” ve hic le s a nd tra nsfe rre d the p roc e e ds to his mothe r, or Sa le hi’ s c om p e ting de c l ara t ion tha

t he ha d be e n in im m igration de te ntion a

t this tim e , re n de ring him una ble to se ll ve h ic le s; a

nd the we ight to begive n to Sa le hi’ s e x-spouse ’ s te stim ony a ga inst him , whic h Sa le hi dispute d. On June 9, 2014, theB AP e nte re d a m e m orandum

disposition a

n d judgm e nt re ve rsing theba nkruptc y c ourt for re solving fa c tua l dispute s a ga inst Sa le hi, the nonm oving pa rty , a n d ruling tha

t Globa l fa ile d to m e e t its burde n on sum m ary judgm e nt. The re sult of the B AP’ s de c ision wa s to re m a n d for findings on dispute d m a te ria l fa c ts. Globa l a ppe a le d. 2. B e c a

use this a ppe a l is not final for purpose s of 28 U.S.C . § 158(d), we la c k jurisdic tion. A de c ision of theB AP is ge ne ra l ly not fina l whe re the B AP “ re m ands for fa c tua l de te rm i nat ions on a c e ntra l issue .” In reThe Vill. at Lak e ridge , LLC , 814 F.3d 993, 998 n.7 (9th C i r. 2016) (c i tation omitte d ). Howe ve r, we m ay a sse rt jurisdic tion ove r B AP de c isions re m anding for fa c tua l de te rm i nations in c e rta in

“ rare insta

nc e s” whe re the re is a

n “ im porta nt le ga l que stion tha

t would like ly dispose of the c a se and obvia te the ne e d for furthe r fa c tfinding.” In reSc ov is , 249 F.3d 975, 981 (9th C ir. 2001). In a pply ing this “ fle xible a

p proa c h” to fina lity , we 3c onside r four fa c tors, known a s the Vy le ne fa c tors: “ (1) the ne e d to a void pie c e m e a l litiga

t ion; (2) judic ia l e ffic ie nc y ; (3) the sy ste m ic inte re st in pre se rving the b ankruptc y c ourt’ s role a s the finde r of fa c t; a nd (4) whe the r de la

y ing re vie w would c a use e ithe r pa

rty irre pa ra ble ha rm .” In re Be nde r , 586 F.3d 1159, 1164 (9th C ir. 2009) (c iting V

y le neEnte rs., Inc . v . N

a ugle s, Inc . , 968 F.2d 887, 895–96 (9th C ir. 1992)). All four Vy le ne fa c t ors we igh a ga inst our c ourt’ s e xe rc ise of jurisdic tion. This a ppe a l pre se n ts a

pure l y fa c tua l dispute involving c re dibility and e v ide ntia ry we ight, a nd the re is no ove rarc hing, na rrowing le g a l issue . Se e In re Sc holz , 699 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th C ir. 2012) (sta t ing tha t the se c ond a

nd third Vy le ne fa c tors we igh in fa

vor of the e xe rc ise of jurisdic t ion whe re “ re s olution of a c e ntra l le ga l issue would m a te ria lly

a id the ba

nkruptc y c ourt in re a c hing its disposition on re m and” ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d ) . Afte r a ll fa c tua l dispute s have be e n re s olve d and the ba

nkruptc y c o urt ha s rule d, the losing pa rty m ay a ppe a l. If this c ourt is c a lle d upon to inte rve ne , it would be

m ost e ffic ie nt for it to do so just onc e , on a

c om ple te re c ord. Thus, judic ia l e ffic ie nc y , the ne e d to a void pie c e m e a l litiga

t ion, a nd the sy ste m i c inte re s t in pre se rving the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s role a s fa c tfinde r disfa

vor the inte rve ntion of this c ourt a t this time . Globa l m ake s no showing tha

t it will suffer irre pa

ra ble ha rm if re vie w is de nie d now. Thus, 4Globa l fa ils to show tha t this is a “ rare insta

nc e [] ” in whic h a

B A P judgm e n t a

nd disposition rem anding for furthe r fa c tfinding m ay be de e m e d fina l for purpose s of 28 U.S.C . § 158(d). S

e e In reSc ov is , 249 F.3d a t 981. 3. Nor is Globa l a ide d by the a uthority c ite d in its April 4, 2016, le tte r brie f re sponding to the

orde r to show c a

use . In re Mc G innis , 24 F.3d 247 (9th C i r. 1994), is a

non-pre c e d e ntia l, non-c ite a ble m e m oran dum

disposition. Se e Ninth C ir. R ule 36-3(c ). In In reBe tac om of Phoe nix , Inc . , 240 F.3d 823 (9th C ir. 2001), the p ane l e xe rc ise d jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 158(d) whe n a distric t c ourt a c ting in its ba

nkruptc y a ppe lla te c a pa c ity re v e rse d a

grant of pa

rtia l sum m ary judgm e nt ba se d on a

distinc t , unse ttle d le ga l issue , i.e . , whe the r an a c tua l purc ha se or sa l e of se c uritie s is ne c e ssa ry to trigge r m a

n d atory subordina

tion unde r 11 U.S.C . § 510(b). 240 F.3d a t 826, 828–29. No suc

h issue e xists he re . Although c e rta in la ngua ge in In re

Pizza of Haw

aii , 761 F.2d 1374 (9th C ir. 1985), m ay a ppe ar to sugge st tha

t a B AP de c ision re ve rsing a fina l ba nkruptc y c ourt orde r is a lwa y s fina l, se eid. a t 1378, Vy le ne e xpla i ne d tha t P i zza of Hawaii im

plic itly

“ ba la nc e d the polic ie s of a

voiding pie c e m e a l a

p pe a ls a n d e nha nc ing judic ia l e ffic ie nc y ,” se e 9 68 F.2d a t 895. As discu sse d, the se polic ie s strongly disfa vor the e xe rc ise of jurisdic tion he re , whe re the re is no na rrowing le ga l issue tha

t will

“ m a te ria l ly

a id the ba

nkruptc y c ourt in re a c hing its disposition on re m and.” In re 5Sc holz , 699 F.3d a t 1171 (c ita

tion omitte d). The suc c e ss or fa ilure of Globa l’ s c la im s for nondisc ha

rge a bility de p e nd e ntire ly

upon dispute d fa c tua l issue s tha t m ust be re solve d in the first insta nc e by the ba

nkruptc y c ourt. Se e In reBe nde r , 586 F.3d a

t 1164–65. For the se re a sons, theorde r to show c a use is not disc h arge d, a

nd the a ppe a l is dismisse d

for la c k of jurisdic tion. DISM I SSE D.

6