Opinion ID: 626960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DISCUSSION This Court's Jurisdiction

Text: The parties do not dispute our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Nevertheless, [w]e have an independent obligation to consider the presence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.  Coll. Standard Magazine v. Student Ass'n of State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 610 F.3d 33, 35 (2d Cir.2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have made clear in the past that 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) is the exclusive source of court of appeals jurisdiction over orders of district courts reviewing bankruptcy court rulings. In re Lomas Fin. Corp., 932 F.2d 147, 150 (2d Cir.1991). Section 158(d)(1) provides that [t]he courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees of United States district courts and bankruptcy appellate panels reviewing decisions of bankruptcy courts. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)-(b), (d). [3] But a district court's order can be final for purposes of appealability only if the order of the bankruptcy court below was also final. See In re Fugazy Express, Inc., 982 F.2d 769, 775 (2d Cir.1992) (The district court's own decision of an appeal from the bankruptcy court is not a final decision for purposes of appeal to the court of appeals unless the order of the bankruptcy court was final.). Therefore, we may exercise jurisdiction over this appeal only if the order of the bankruptcy court was final. The standards for determining finality in bankruptcy differ from those applicable to ordinary civil litigation. In re Sonnax Indus., Inc., 907 F.2d 1280, 1283 (2d Cir.1990). This difference is due to the fact that a bankruptcy proceeding is umbrella litigation often covering numerous actions that are related only by the debtor's status as a litigant and that often involve decisions that will be unreviewable if appellate jurisdiction exists only at the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceeding. Id. Accordingly, we regard as final orders that finally dispose of discrete disputes within the larger case. Id. (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Bankruptcy court orders lifting an automatic stay are final for purposes of appealability. See, e.g., In re Chateaugay Corp., 880 F.2d 1509, 1511 (2d Cir.1989). So are orders denying relief from an automatic stay, see, e.g., In re Pegasus Agency, Inc., 101 F.3d 882, 885 (2d Cir.1996), so long as the bankruptcy court has not indicated that it contemplates further proceedings on the question of relief from the stay, see Lomas, 932 F.2d at 151; In re Enron Corp., 316 B.R. 767, 770 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Here, the Clarifying Order that is the subject of this appeal did not grant or deny relief from a stay; rather, it clarified that a stay applied to a particular party. But in Lomas, we stated that whether a bankruptcy court order involve[s] an appeal from a denial of a motion to lift the automatic stay ... [or] involves an appeal from an order holding ... that the automatic stay applies to the action is not a distinction of consequence to the finality issue. Lomas, 932 F.2d at 151 n. 2. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe that the bankruptcy court contemplates additional proceedings as to the applicability of the stay to the Angelos suits. The bankruptcy court's resolution of the dispute between Angelos and the Appellants as to whether the stay applies to the Angelos suits is the equivalent of a decision from that court on a motion seeking relief from a stay. Accordingly, we agree with the district court's well-reasoned conclusion that the bankruptcy court's CO was final, see In re Quigley, No. M-47 (RJH), 2010 WL 356653 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2010), and we thus have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.