Opinion ID: 771425
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 10 We have jurisdiction over an appeal from a final order of the district court under 28 U.S.C. 158(d) & 1291. Ordinarily, a district court order is final if it affirms or reverses a final bankruptcy court order. See Stanley v. Crossland, Crossland, Chambers, MacArthur & Lastreto (In re Lakeshore Village Resort, Ltd.), 81 F.3d 103, 105 (9th Cir. 1996). However, [i[n bankruptcy proceedings the rules of finality developed under the general grant of appellate jurisdiction provided in 28 U.S.C. 1291 (1982) are given a flexible reading. Century Ctr. Partners Ltd. v. FDIC (In re Century Ctr. Partners Ltd.), 969 F.2d 835, 838 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Walthall v. United States, 131 F.3d 1289, 1292-93 (9th Cir. 1997) (finality determination in the bankruptcy context has its own set of rules). We therefore use a pragmatic approach to finality in bankruptcy because `certain proceedings in a bankruptcy case are so distinctive and conclusive either to the rights of individual parties or the ultimate outcome of the case that final decisions as to them should be appealable as of right.'  Alexander v. Compton (In re Bonham), 229 F.3d 750, 761 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Elliott v. Four Seasons Properties (In re Frontier Properties, Inc.), 979 F.2d 1358, 1363 (9th Cir. 1992)). This approach has led us to exercise jurisdiction over appeals from bankruptcy court orders denying summary judgment. See Alvarado v. Walsh (In re LCO Enters.), 12 F.3d 938, 940-41 (9th Cir. 1993) (affirming BAP's reversal of the bankruptcy court's denial of the debtor landlord's motion for summary judgment). 11 The district court's order disposed of all the issues in the case by overruling Prestige's objections to East Bay's claim and was thus sufficiently conclusive to be appealable. 1 12 Because the district court declined to rule on the issue of the amount of East Bay's claim, however, the question arises of whether the district court's order was final. Prestige argued before the district court and to this court that, even if East Bay did hold an unsecured claim, it should be limited to the amount of the avoided security interest, rather than the amount of the debt. The bankruptcy court did not address the issue, presumably because Prestige did not raise it, focusing instead on the issue of whether East Bay held a claim at all. See Prestige II, 223 B.R. at 207 (The court is now asked to determine whether East Bay has an unsecured claim in the bankruptcy case.); id. (The ultimate issue is whether East Bay has any claim against Prestige in the bankruptcy case.). The district court noted that the bankruptcy court did not address the amount of the claim and that the record was void as to whether Prestige raised the issue below, and so declined to rule on the issue. 13 Any further proceedings that would be required here in order to determine the amount of East Bay's claim would involve new proceedings and factual findings independent of the legal conclusion upon which the bankruptcy court based its decision to allow East Bay's claim at all. Sims v. DeArmond (In re Lendvest Mortgage, Inc.), 42 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th Cir. 1994). Furthermore, the question of whether East Bay still holds a claim at all  `is clearly potentially dispositive,'  for there is no need to determine the amount of East Bay's claim without a finding that it still holds a claim. Id. (quoting Bonner Mall P'ship v. U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. (In re Bonner Mall P'ship), 2 F.3d 899, 904 (9th Cir. 1993), dismissed as moot, 513 U.S. 18 (1994)). In United States v. Stone (In re Stone), 6 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 1993), the bankruptcy court granted partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the IRS held an interest in proceeds held by the debtor, leaving other issues yet to be determined in the adversary proceeding. As in Stone, where the BAP's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order was a final and appealable order because it resolved[d] the question of the priority of the federal tax lien, the district court's order here resolved the question of whether East Bay holds a claim at all. Id. at 583 n.1. The district court's order is therefore final for purposes of our jurisdiction. Cf. Law Offices of Nicholas A. Franke v. Tiffany, 113 F.3d 1040. 1043 (9th Cir. 1997) (where the bankruptcy court ordered funds disgorged with disposition pending further court order, appellate jurisdiction existed over the discrete issue of whether the bankruptcy court properly ordered the funds disgorged at all).