Court Opinion

ID: 9879787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 18:41:47.424459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:02.024254
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, J., dissenting. While I agree with the majority on the merits, I would instead dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal is from* the denial of plan confirmation without prejudice. The Supreme Court held in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank that the denial of plan confirmation with leave to amend is categorically not a final order. — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 1686, 1692, 191 L.Ed.2d 621 (2015). While Bullard involved a Chapter 13 case, the Court’s reasoning applies with equal force to Chapter 11 cases, such as ours. See id. at 1693 (“These concerns [relating to piecemeal appeals] are heightened if the same rule applies in Chapter 11, as the parties assume”). Although not binding on us, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reached this same conclusion, citing Bullard, and held it had jurisdiction only by granting leave to review an interlocutory appeal. Unlike the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, we cannot review interlocutory appeals, except in circumstances not applicable here. See In re Gugliuzza, 852 F.3d 884, 890-91 (9th Cir. 2017), citing 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). Therefore, we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal.