Opinion ID: 1266190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We have jurisdiction over appeals from final orders of the BAP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We reject Hoopai's contention that the BAP's order is not final because it remanded the case for further fact-finding. Although an order remanding to the bankruptcy court for fact-finding is not considered final when the findings sought are related to a central issue raised on appeal, an order is final within the meaning of § 158(d) [i]f the matters on remand concern primarily factual issues about which there is no dispute, and the appeal concerns a question of law. In re Dawson, 390 F.3d 1139, 1145 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting In re Bankr.Estate of Markair, Inc., 308 F.3d 1057, 1060 (9th Cir.2002)) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In such case, the policies of judicial efficiency and finality are best served by our resolving the question now. Dawson, 390 F.3d at 1145 (quoting MarkAir, 308 F.3d at 1060) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The central issues raised in this appeal are (1) whether federal bankruptcy law, rather than Hawaii law, governs Countrywide's claim to attorneys' fees and (2) which party is the prevailing party under Hawaii law. These issues are primarily legal, and concern undisputed facts. Moreover, the fact-finding directed on remand would not address these issues, as the BAP already decided them by determining that Hawaii law applied and that Hoopai was the prevailing party under state law. Any further fact-finding would focus on whether Hoopai incurred reasonable attorneys' fees for which she is entitled to reimbursementan inquiry which would be rendered superfluous were we to determine that she was not the prevailing party. The BAP's order is therefore final for the purpose of this appeal, and jurisdiction lies with this court.