Sahagun v. Landmark Fence Co., No. 13-55509 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseSahagun filed a class action suit against Landmark, alleging that Landmark had failed to pay a variety of wages required by California law. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling that Sahagun was entitled to the prevailing wage for time spent fabricating components for public works contracts. The district court held, however, that the bankruptcy court applied an incorrect legal standard for assessing whether Landmark was required to pay prevailing wages for the time class members spent traveling to and from public worksites. The district court thus remanded for “additional fact finding.” Both parties appealed. The court weighed four factors to assess jurisdiction, concluding that the risk of piecemeal litigation in this instance is significant; judicial efficiency would not be enhanced by exercising jurisidiction; systemic interest in preserving the bankruptcy court's role as the finder of fact tips in favor of declining jurisdiction; and delaying review would not cause irreparable harm to either party. The court held that the district court's order was not a final order and, therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Court Description: Bankruptcy. The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal and a cross-appeal from the district court’s order in a bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court ruled, after a trial, that the bankruptcy debtor had committed violations of California wage and hour laws, and it awarded damages to a plaintiff class. The district court affirmed in part but held that the bankruptcy court had applied an incorrect legal standard for assessing whether the debtor was required to pay prevailing wages for the time class members spent traveling to and from public worksites. The district court remanded for additional fact finding on the terms of the debtor’s public works contracts and the practical conditions of the jobsite to determine what damages might be justified. The panel held that it lacked jurisdiction because the district court’s order vacating the bankruptcy court’s judgment and remanding for further factfinding was not a final order. The panel concluded that the risk of piecemeal IN RE LANDMARK FENCE 3 litigation was significant; judicial efficiency would not be enhanced by exercising jurisdiction; preserving the bankruptcy court’s role as the finder of fact tipped in favor of declining jurisdiction; and neither party would suffer irreparable harm if the panel declined jurisdiction.
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.