Case Name: IN RE: Adina I. ZAHARESCU, Debtor. Satish Shetty, Appellant, v. LSI Title Company, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-24
Citations: 696 F. App'x 825
Docket Number: No. 14-55403
Parties: IN RE: Adina I. ZAHARESCU, Debtor. Satish Shetty, Appellant, v. LSI Title Company, Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 825–826

Head Matter:
IN RE: Adina I. ZAHARESCU, Debtor. Satish Shetty, Appellant, v. LSI Title Company, Appellee.
No. 14-55403
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 24, 2017
Satish Shetty, Pro Se
Annette Franchelly Mijanovic, Attorney, S. Christian Stouder, Attorney, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellee
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Satish Shetty appeals pro se from the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's order dismissing claims against appellee in Shetty's adversary proceeding. We review de novo our own jurisdiction and whether a bankruptcy court's decision is final. Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot Springs), 339 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss.
This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because "the bankruptcy court's order did not dispose of all of the issues in the adversary proceeding" or "direct entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) which applies to adversary proceedings in bankruptcy by -virtue of Bankruptcy Rule 7054." Walther v. King City Transit Mix, Inc. (In re King City Transit Mix, Inc.), 738 F.2d 1065, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 1984) (appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy extends only to matters appealable to the district court as of right).
Appellee's motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 12) is denied as unnecessary.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.