MARTINA SILAS V. JAMES ARDEN, No. 15-60053 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 05 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: JAMES ELLIS ARDEN, No. 15-60053 Debtor, ______________________________ BAP No. 14-1186 MARTINA A. SILAS, MEMORANDUM* Appellant, v. JAMES ELLIS ARDEN, Appellee. Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Kurtz, Dunn, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 6, 2017 Submission Withdrawn February 17, 2017 Resubmitted June 30, 2017 Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, IKUTA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Creditor Martina A. Silas appeals that Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s order vacating summary judgment in her favor and remanding the case to the bankruptcy court to determine whether debtor James Ellis Arden’s malicious prosecution of Silas was “willful” for 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) purposes. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Silas argues that we have jurisdiction to consider her appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), which permits consideration of “appeals from all final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees” issued by a district court or bankruptcy appellate panel sitting in review of a bankruptcy court decision. Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) is limited to appeals arising from final decisions, judgments, orders, or decrees. Sahagun v. Landmark Fence Co. (In re Landmark Fence Co.), 801 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2015). An order in a bankruptcy case is final when it “finally dispose[s] of discrete disputes within the larger case.” Howard Delivery Serv. v. Zurich Am. Ins., 547 U.S. 651, 657 n.3 (2006) (emphasis omitted). Where a bankruptcy court’s order does not “alter the status quo or fix the parties’ rights and obligations,” it does not finally dispose of a discrete dispute. Gugliuzza v. FTC (In re Gugliuzza), 852 F.3d 884, 897 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S. Ct. 1686, 1692 (2015)). Thus, for example, where a bankruptcy 2 court denies a debtor’s proposed confirmation plan and gives the debtor leave to amend the proposed plan, the denial is not final because the “parties’ rights and obligations remain unsettled.” Bullard, 135 S. Ct. at 1693. Here, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision did not finally dispose of a discrete dispute, alter the legal relationship between the parties, or fix the parties’ rights and obligations. It left the ultimate question of whether the judgment debt is nondischargeable open and unresolved. The order therefore lacked finality, and so we lack jurisdiction to consider Silas’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). DISMISSED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
