Court Opinion

ID: 9945627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 02:01:33.057575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:34.935169
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 24-1057            Document: 010111006475     Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 1
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                           United States Court of Appeals
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                                 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                          February 27, 2024
                             _________________________________
                                                                              Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                  Clerk of Court
  In re: SHERRY ANN MCGANN,

         Debtor.

  ------------------------------

  SHERRY ANN MCGANN,

         Appellant,

  v.                                                               No. 24-1057
                                                               (BAP No. 23-24-CO)
  JEANNE JAGOW, Chapter 7 Trustee,                          (Bankruptcy Appellate Panel)

         Appellee.
                             _________________________________

                                 ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                             _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

        The bankruptcy court ordered pro se appellant Sherry Ann McGann to allow

 the Trustee access to certain real property. Ms. McGann appealed to the Bankruptcy

 Appellate Panel (BAP) and asked the BAP to stay the order. The BAP denied a stay,

        *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
 estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 24-1057    Document: 010111006475       Date Filed: 02/27/2024    Page: 2

 and Ms. McGann appealed that denial to this court. She then filed an emergency

 motion for stay in this court, seeking a stay pending appeal of the bankruptcy court’s

 subsequent order specifying that the Trustee was to have access to the real property

 on February 28, 2024, and March 6, 2024.

       After Ms. McGann filed her appeal, this court issued an order to show cause

 questioning our appellate jurisdiction. Ms. McGann has filed her response. In light

 of the urgent nature of Ms. McGann’s emergency motion for stay, we consider our

 appellate jurisdiction in conjunction with her motion for stay.

        Ms. McGann suggests two grounds for appellate jurisdiction: finality and an

 interlocutory appeal. But neither ground establishes our appellate jurisdiction to

 review the BAP’s denial of a stay.

       “The denial of a stay pending appeal is not an appealable order.” UFCW Loc.

 880-Retail Food Employers Joint Pension Fund v. Newmont Mining Corp.,

 276 F. App’x 747, 749 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (internal quotation marks

 omitted). Ms. McGann suggests that the order is final because on February 25, the

 bankruptcy court denied her motion to reconsider the denial of her motion to dismiss

 her bankruptcy. That bankruptcy-court decision, however, has no impact on the

 finality of the BAP’s order denying a stay.

       Ms. McGann next suggests that the court could allow an interlocutory appeal

 under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Although § 1292(b) allows appeals from a district court

 sitting as an appellate court in bankruptcy, see Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain,

 503 U.S. 249, 1150 (1992), other circuits have not extended that rule to appeals from

                                            2
Appellate Case: 24-1057    Document: 010111006475         Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 3

 BAP decisions, see Bullard v. Hyde Park Sav. Bank (In re Bullard), 752 F.3d 483,

 485 n.2 (1st Cir. 2014) (stating that § 1292(b) “is inapplicable to orders of the

 BAP”), aff’d, 575 U.S. 496 (2015); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d

 1502, 1506 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[I]nterlocutory review is not available under section

 1292(b) for appeals from a bankruptcy appellate panel.”). And even if § 1292(b)

 were available, the BAP has not certified that its “order involves a controlling

 question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and

 that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate

 termination of the litigation,” as would be required for appeal under § 1292(b).

 See Gordon v. Bank of Am., N.A. (In re Gordon), 743 F.3d 720, 724 (10th Cir. 2014)

 (noting the appellants “did not seek § 1292 certification and we cannot certify on our

 own”).

       We have not identified any other ground that would establish appellate

 jurisdiction in these circumstances. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of

 jurisdiction. It follows that we must deny the emergency motion for stay pending

 appeal. See Desktop Direct, Inc. v. Digital Equip. Corp., 993 F.2d 755, 760

 (10th Cir. 1993) (denying stay as a consequence of finding court lacked jurisdiction

 over interlocutory appeal).

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Per Curiam

                                             3