Opinion ID: 222590
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This Court's Jurisdiction

Text: Before considering whether the BAP had jurisdiction over the Delaware Bankruptcy Court's order for relief, we first must establish that our jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), which provides [t]he courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees entered under subsections (a) and (b) of this section. [5] To determine finality under § 158(d)(1), we look to the order of the BAP itself, determining whether it is final by considering the effect that the order will have in the context of the particular appeal. If the BAP's order results in significant further proceedings in the bankruptcy court, the BAP's order is not final, and we do not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal therefrom. Strong v. W. United Life Assurance Co. (In re Tri-Valley Distrib., Inc.), 533 F.3d 1209, 1214 (10th Cir.2008) (citation omitted). Although the analysis hinges on the effect of the BAP order, it also requires considering whether the bankruptcy court order is final. The court in In re Tri-Valley Distributing listed several combinations of final and nonfinal orders by the bankruptcy judge and on appeal to the BAP that determine whether this court has jurisdiction under § 158(d). Id. One combination giving rise to circuit court jurisdiction occurs when the BAP affirms a final order of a bankruptcy judge because no further proceedings would be contemplated in the bankruptcy court. Id. The Tri-Valley court did not give an example where, as here, the BAP dismisses an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but the effect is the same as an affirmance  it leaves in place the order appealed, here the order for relief. Thus, this court must look to whether the order for relief is final [i]n the bankruptcy context, which requires looking not at the overall bankruptcy case, but rather the particular adversary proceeding or discrete controversy pursued within the broader framework cast by the petition. Id. at 1213-14 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have found only two circuit cases that have considered whether an order for relief in an involuntary case is a final order for purposes of circuit court jurisdiction. In the first, In re Mason, the Ninth Circuit concluded that an order for relief is final and appealable because, as an adjudication that is a conclusive determination of the debtor's status in bankruptcy, it is res judicata between the actual parties to the proceeding to all the facts and subsidiary questions of law on which it is based. 709 F.2d at 1315-16. [6] The court's conclusion was based on the view that an order for relief may determine and seriously affect substantive rights and cause irreparable harm to the losing party if he had to wait to appeal to the end of the bankruptcy case. Id. at 1316 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court also noted the similarities between (a) the procedures leading to an order for relief and (b) the procedures in bankruptcy adversary proceedings and other civil and criminal litigation ending in final, appealable judgments, including motions practice, discovery, hearings, the taking of evidence, and judicial findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id. at 1317. The Mason court also considered it significant that once an order for relief is entered, [a]ll that remains to be done is, in effect, the execution of the judgment through gathering the debtor's assets, liquidating them, turning the proceeds over to the creditors, and discharging the debtor. Id. at 1318. In the second case to consider whether an order for relief is final, McGinnis v. Jenkins & Associates, Inc. (In re McGinnis), 296 F.3d 730, 731 (8th Cir.2002), the Eighth Circuit followed Mason. The McGinnis court characterized Mason as standing for the proposition that an order for relief is a final order for § 158(d) purposes because it is a final adjudication of the debtor's bankruptcy status that subjects the debtor's assets to involuntary liquidation. Id. We consider the reasoning of these cases sound, and therefore conclude that the order for relief is a final order, and the BAP's dismissal of the appeal from that order is appealable under the framework set out in In re Tri-Valley Distributing.