An appellate court has jurisdiction of appeals from “all final decisions, judgment and orders.” 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). These are appeals as of right, which a party may take simply by filing a notice of appeal.

The district court granted the motion and the defendants appealed.Ninth Circuit’s Analysis The sole issue addressed on appeal was whether the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction over the appeal. Courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals of orders entered in bankruptcy cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). 28 U.S.C. § 1291, enacted in 1948 during the referee system employed prior to the establishment of the Bankruptcy Code, provides, in relevant part, that the “courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) was promulgated as part of the Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 in response to the Supreme Court’s Marathon decision, which held that jurisdiction afforded bankruptcy courts under the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 was too broad.

District courts can hear an appeal from any interlocutory order, as long as they agree to accept the appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). Final judgments, orders and decrees are always immediately appealable.

As we have noted in another post, Non-Final Finality: Does One Interlocutory Issue Resolved in a Bankruptcy Court Order Render All Issues Addressed in the Order Non-Appealable?, not all orders in bankruptcy cases are immediately appealable as a matter of right. Only those orders deemed sufficiently “final” may be appealed without additional court authorization. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3) (interlocutory order may be appealed only with leave of the court). Appeals from “final” bankruptcy-court orders usually are first heard by a United States district court or a bankruptcy appellate panel (a “BAP”), which have jurisdiction “to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees” from bankruptcy courts.

The issue arose because 28 U.S.C. §152, which establishes the appellate jurisdiction of district courts, bankruptcy appellate panels, and courts of appeal over bankruptcy matters, expressly incorporates Rule 8002 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure by reference. (“An appeal under subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be taken in the same manner as appeals in civil proceedings generally are taken to the courts of appeals from the district courts and in the time provided by Rule 8002 of the Bankruptcy Rules.” 28 U.S.C. §158(c)(2) (emphasis added)). The Court ultimately agreed with the position taken by the Sixth Circuit in Tennial v. REI Nation, LLC (In re Tennial), 978 F.3d 1022 (6th Cir. 2020), holding that the fourteen-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal in Rule 8002(a)(1) is “mandatory but not jurisdictional.”

On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, No. 18-938, holding that an order unreservedly ruling on a creditor’s motion for relief from bankruptcy’s automatic stay is a final order that is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, when a debtor files for bankruptcy, the Code imposes an automatic stay on creditors from attempting to collect from the debtor, whether through pending or new litigation or even through informal means, such as repossession. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).

debtor then appealed to the Fifth Circuit.The Fifth Circuit's RulingA three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit vacated the magistrate judge's ruling and remanded the case below, but not on the merits of the appeal.Writing for the Fifth Circuit panel, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Edith H. Jones emphasized that the court of appeals has an obligation to examine the district court's jurisdiction before addressing the merits of a dispute. She concluded that the district court's judgment must be vacated "because the district court improperly authorized referral of the appeal from a bankruptcy court decision to a magistrate judge," and that was inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit's previous ruling in Minerex Erdoel, Inc. v. Sina, Inc., 838 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1988).In Minerex, Judge Jones explained, a previous Fifth Circuit panel held that, despite the "broad latitude" for referring matters to magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the statute governing appeals from bankruptcy court decisions—28 U.S.C. § 158—"plainly and solely" permits appeals to be taken either to a district court or a bankruptcy appellate panel. Houston Action Counsel, 38 F.4th at 472 (citing Minerex, 838 F.2d at 786). The Minerex court also stated that "[i]t is reasonable to conclude that had Congress meant for its appeals scheme to include the potential for reference to a magistrate, Congress would have expressly so provided … [yet] did not do so." Minerex, 838 F.2d at 786. Judge Jones noted that a district court may refer bankruptcy appeals to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation, but the district court can adopt the magistrate's findings and conclusions only after engaging in independent consideration of the issues. Houston Action Counsel, 38 F.4th at 472 n.1.The Fifth Circuit accordingly vacated the magistrate judge's judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.OutlookThe Fifth Circuit's ruling in Houston Action Counsel resolves the conflict between the two statutes a

Federal law allows final orders of the bankruptcy court to be appealed but requires a party to file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the final order is entered. 28 U.S.C. 158. Ritzen did not file a notice of appeal within that time frame.As the case progressed, Ritzen filed a proof of claim, and the bankruptcy court determined that Ritzen was actually the party that breached the land sale contract for failing to obtain financing. Accordingly, Ritzen’s claim in the bankruptcy case was set to zero, and Ritzen would receive no recovery under Jackson’s Chapter 11 plan.

granted 12/12/14). The Court's decision in this case will resolve a circuit split with regard to whether an order denying confirmation of a bankruptcy plan is a final order appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). The decision has the potential to impact Chapter 13 and Chapter 11 cases.

The second challenged the court’s resolution of the breach of contract claim.The district court held that Ritzen did not timely appeal the order denying relief from the automatic stay. The district court held that under 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2)5 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a),6 the time to appeal expired 14-days after the bankruptcy court’s entry of the order. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit subsequently affirmed.Court of Appeals’ DecisionThe crux of the Court of Appeals decision was whether an order denying relief from the automatic stay qualifies as a “final order” under the standard set by the Supreme Court in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496 (2015), where the Supreme Court held that a party must promptly appeal an order in a bankruptcy case or a proceeding, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a),7 that finally disposes of a discrete dispute within the larger case.