Court Opinion

ID: 9686121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:30:32.072837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:15.185308
License: Public Domain

YOTOLATO, Chief Judge,
concurring in the result.
The Supreme Court in Northern Pipeline held that “§ 241(a) of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978 has impermissibly removed most, if not all, of ‘the essential attributes of the judicial power’ from the Art. Ill district court, and has vested those attributes in a non-Art. Ill adjunct.” Northern Pipeline
Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., -U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 2879-80, 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982). I agree with the conclusion of the majority of this Panel to the extent that “if Congress cannot constitutionally establish non-Article III courts to exercise jurisdiction over the wide range of issues encompassed by [28 U.S.C.] section 1471 at the trial level, then it cannot establish non-Article III courts to hear the same issues at the appellate level.” Majority Opinion at 62. Accordingly, I concur in the majority’s conclusion as to the Panel’s lack of jurisdiction. I write separately because I disagree with the untenable result of the majority opinion: dismissal not on the merits but on purely technical grounds of all other appeals pending before this Panel.
For the reasons given in this concurrence, including the lack of uniformity prevailing throughout the bankruptcy system, and the likely consequences of the action which we take here, I would have preferred to stay this order, pending review by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.1 However, the majority has chosen not to issue a stay. Accordingly, I feel compelled to write separately, to state the reasons why a stay is imperative where an order has been issued by a Panel whose very existence has been questioned, and where other appellants with cases pending before this Panel presumably will find their cases summarily dismissed.
The majority is undoubtedly correct in stating the general proposition that a federal court has authority to rule on its own jurisdiction. However, those cases cited by the majority involve courts which have not been stripped of all jurisdiction, and deal *64only with whether said courts do or do not have jurisdiction to determine a particular cause. None of the cases addresses the issue of the existence of the court whose jurisdiction is being questioned; and the appellant’s contention that a court with no legal status whatsoever is powerless to grant a motion to dismiss, cannot easily be disregarded. The very uncertainty as to whether this Panel continues to exist and, if so, what authority it possesses, I feel, lends support to the view that a stay should be issued until the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decides the jurisdictional issues raised within this proceeding.2 A stay would protect appellants against dismissal of their cases, without a hearing on the merits, by a tribunal that probably no longer exists. The right to appeal an order dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction hardly seems to be the type of review contemplated by Congress or by the Circuit Council for the First Circuit in establishing this Panel. Thus, if this Panel ceases to function, appellants in pending cases may well be denied any meaningful appellate review. With a stay or our order, however, whether this decision is reversed or affirmed, or whether legislative action is taken which authorizes the continuance of this Panel, then appellants of pre-December 25 orders and judgments will not have been deprived of review of their cases on the merits.
It should also be kept in mind that there are two Bankruptcy Appellate Panels in the First Circuit, and that the Panel which hears appeals from orders and judgments of Maine and Rhode Island bankruptcy courts continues to adjudicate pending appeals. Similarly, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panels are conducting business as usual under a December 28, 1982 order entered by the Judicial Council for that Circuit.3 A stay would avoid the anomalous situation in which appeals from Maine and Rhode Island bankruptcy courts continue to *65be heard by an appellate panel, while appeals from Massachusetts and New Hampshire bankruptcy courts are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by a panel which was created simultaneously and with identical statutory and judicial grants of authority.
The rationale of the Circuit Council for the First Circuit in promulgating the Emergency Rule was to ensure that in this “highly unusual set of circumstances” the bankruptcy system would continue to function. Order (December 22, 1982). These exceptional circumstances and the general confusion in the wake of Northern Pipeline4 have caused other courts to stay their orders and judgments pending appeal.5 Given the equally unusual circumstances that currently exist with respect to appellate panels, a stay of our order, even in the absence of action by the Circuit Council for the First Circuit, would permit this Panel to continue to function.6
*66There is much concerning these issues about which I am uncertain, but there is very little in the area of bankruptcy jurisdiction today that is clear-cut. It is for this reason that I disagree with the majority and would urge the issuance of a stay so that the rights of parties will not be finally terminated by a tribunal that may well not exist. I join in the decision to dismiss this appeal because I can find no ground for doing otherwise; but because of the harm that will result to appellants whose cases will be summarily dismissed if the reasoning of the majority is rigorously applied, I write separately.

. Certain of the jurisdictional issues discussed in this concurrence were raised during oral argument by appellant Massachusetts Department of Public Welfare. Because this proceeding involves novel questions of first impression, of obviously critical significance to taxpayers as well as other appellants of pre-December 24, 1982 orders, and of importance to bankruptcy practice in general, it appears certain that the Commonwealth will appeal our order to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Mindful of the possibility, however unlikely, that this order may not be appealed, and seriously concerned with the result should our order become final at the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel level, I sought, but in vain, to locate a method or vehicle by which to ensure that the First Circuit Court of Appeals would be able to provide appellate review of this matter on the merits. Not only has my research failed to produce any positive authority for such action — all that we have found on the subject militates against that idea.

. One bankruptcy court which found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction after Northern Pipeline concluded that the “exercise of jurisdiction when none exists would ... do catastrophic and irreparable harm to those who act in reliance upon the court’s orders and judgments.” The court dismissed the complaint before it, but stayed the order pending appeal, and certified to the district court that the circumstances required immediate review. Gillman v. Preston Family Inv. Co. (In re Richardson), 27 B.R. 407, 427, 10 B.C.D. 39, 53 (Bkrtcy.D.Utah 1983), vacated and remanded, 27 B.R. 962, 10 B.C.D. 182 (D.Utah 1983).
Another bankruptcy judge concluded that after the expiration of the stay in Northern Pipeline, “neither this Court nor I as one of its judges may well have any existence or jurisdiction independent of the District Court’s [Emergency] Rule.” The judge also concluded that he had no “power to pass on the validity of the orders of the District Court.” Lipman Bros., Inc. v. Lipman (In re Lipman Bros., Inc.), 27 B.R. 529, 529, 530 (Bkrtcy.D.Mass.1983). If this Bankruptcy Appellate Panel were to apply this reasoning to appellate panels, we would undoubtedly conclude that we may well have no “existence or jurisdiction.” Whereas the Emergency Rule provides for the continued operation of bankruptcy courts, it not only does not provide for appellate panels, but states explicitly that “bankruptcy judges may not conduct ... an appeal from a judgment, order, decree, or decision of a United States bankruptcy judge-” Rule § (d)(1)(C).
Appellant contends that if this Panel no longer exists as a constitutionally authorized tribunal, it lacks even the authority to dismiss pending motions. I believe that such an argument, although novel, is not without merit, and that the power to authorize — or reauthorize — such panels lies with the Court of Appeals. See infra note 3 and appendix (Ninth Circuit order establishing bankruptcy appellate review procedures after Northern Pipeline).

. On December 28, 1982 the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit entered an “Order Establishing Appellate Review Procedures in Bankruptcy Cases” in the post-Northern Pipeline period. The order provides in pertinent part:
(1) The bankruptcy appellate panels shall consider and resolve all appeals in which the order or judgment to be reviewed has been entered by the bankruptcy judge before the filing of judgment in Marathon.
By this action, Bankruptcy Appellate Panels in the Ninth Circuit are authorized to adjudicate appeals of orders and judgments of bankruptcy judges entered on or before December 24, 1982. A similar order by the Circuit Council for the First Circuit would provide a method for preserving the rights of parties with appeals pending before this Panel.
The Ninth Circuit order enabling Bankruptcy Appellate Panels to adjudicate appeals of pre-December 25 orders and judgments is reprinted in full in the appendix to this concurring opinion.

.The uncertainty and confusion emanating from the Northern Pipeline decision are apparent from the cases cited by the majority in dismissing the instant appeal. See Majority Opinion at 65 (citation of cases holding that Northern Pipeline invalidated 28 U.S.C. §§ 1471-1482); id. at 65 (citation of cases holding that Supreme Court considered only § 1471); id. at 65 n. 5 (citation of cases holding that Supreme Court did not invalidate § 1471 (a) and (b)). See also Moody v. Martin, 27 B.R. 991 (W.D.Wis.1983) (bankruptcy judge who concluded he retained no power after Northern Pipeline ordered by district court to exercise jurisdiction); Waiter E. Heller and Co. Southeast, Inc. v. Matlock Trailer Corp. (In re Matlock Trailer Corp.), 27 B.R. 318, 10 B.C.D. 372 (M.D.Tenn.1983) (district judge rejected conclusion of two bankruptcy judges that Northern Pipeline deprived bankruptcy courts of subject matter jurisdiction, but held invalid Emergency Rule provision for across-the-board referral of cases to bankruptcy judges); Alithochrome Corp. v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co. (In re Alithochrome Corp.), 28 B.R. 311 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y.1983) (Northern Pipeline has no effect on summary jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts); Still v. First Bank (In re Jorges Carpet Mills, Inc.), 27 B.R. 333, 10 B.C.D. 1 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Tenn.1983) (neither district court nor bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over dispute involving property not in constructive possession of court); Kay Grose Rentals v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 26 B.R. 530, 10 B.C.D. 8 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1983) (although 28 U.S.C. § 1471 held unconstitutional, bankruptcy courts retain power to determine dischargeability of debts); Docter v. Gleicher (In re Stillman), 26 B.R. 834, 10 B.C.D. 5 (Bkrtcy.D.Md.1983) (bankruptcy courts divested of all jurisdiction by Northern Pipeline, must follow Emergency Rule to avoid judicial anarchy); Stonitsch v. Strick Lease, Inc. (In re Isis Foods, Inc.), 26 B.R. 122, 9 B.C.D. 1291 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Mo.1983) (action to recover preference inherently within bankruptcy court jurisdiction and not affected by Northern Pipeline); Winters Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. v. Schear Group (In re Schear Realty & Inv. Co., Inc.), 25 B.R. 463, 9 B.C.D. 1210 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Ohio 1982) (neither district courts nor bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over state law causes of action involving nondebtors in bankruptcy court; judges exercising fictional jurisdiction not immune from civil liability).
Given the variety of interpretations of the implications of both Northern Pipeline and the Emergency Rule which was adopted as an interim measure until Congress acts, the following statement by the Judicial Conference of the United States is particularly puzzling:
There is no present crisis in the operation of the bankruptcy court system. Members of the Judicial Conference of the United States unanimously agree that the Model Rule for the Continued Operation of the Bankruptcy Court System is working well.
Statement of the Judicial Conference (March 17, 1983).

. E.g., Gillman v. Preston Family Inv. Co. (In re Richardson), 27 B.R. 407, 10 B.C.D. 39 (Bkrtcy.D.Utah 1983), vacated and remanded, 27 B.R. 962, 10 B.C.D. 182 (D.Utah 1983); Color Craft Press, Ltd. v. Nationwide Shopper Sys., Inc. (In re Color Cratt Press, Ltd.), 27 B.R. 392, 10 B.C.D. 53 (Bkrtcy.D.Utah 1983), vacated and remanded, 27 B.R. 962, 10 B.C.D. 182 (D.Utah 1983); In re Rivers, 19 B.R. 438, 8 B.C.D. 1212 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Tenn.1982).

. It is possible an appellate court would draw distinctions — which this Panel has not attempted to do — between “traditional” state common-law actions, which must be heard by Article III courts, and other bankruptcy proceedings which may be heard by an Article I tribunal. See Northern Pipeline, supra, 102 S.Ct. at 2882 (Burger, C.J. dissenting). Thus, another possibility to be considered, and yet another reason for a stay, is that the Court of Appeals may conclude that this Panel is authorized to adjudicate some but not all of the appeals pending before it. See also 1616 Reminc Limited Partnership v. Atchison & Keller Co. (In re 1616 Reminc Limited Partnership), 704 F.2d 1313, 1317 (4th Cir.1983) (“the degree to which plenary power to adjudicate traditional common law contract claims may be vested in a federal tribunal without full Article III trappings has never been fully defined”).