The District Court remanded the case to the Bankruptcy Court with instructions to recalculate the amount of damages consistent with the District Court's rulings. Meanwhile, the Bankruptcy Court has been recalculating the damage amount pursuant to the challenged District Court order. We requested that the parties be prepared to address the issue at oral argument. For the reasons that follow, we hold that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal and sua sponte dismiss the action. The question of finality in bankruptcy appeals is a thorny one.
Flexibility is compelled by context, but defeats clarity in the short term.
In a 1987 decision, this Court declined to follow the Riggsby line of cases, holding a district court remand order appealable under the particular facts of that case. In Gardner , the district court reversed the bankruptcy court and remanded on the questions of whether an insurance policy provided coverage for an automobile accident and whether a release had been fraudulently induced. Because the coverage issue was a pure question of law and this Court's resolution of the issue ended what had been protracted litigation, this Court determined it had jurisdiction over the district court order. Subsequent to Gardner , this Court had another occasion to consider the issue of finality of district court orders remanding proceedings to the bankruptcy court and took a different approach to determining appellate court jurisdiction by applying the certification requirements of Fed. Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties.