Professional Documents
Culture Documents
La Ponderosa Corp. v. Soltero Harrington, 1st Cir. (1993)
La Ponderosa Corp. v. Soltero Harrington, 1st Cir. (1993)
_____________________
Jaime Sifre Rodriguez with whom Luis A. Melendez-Albizu
_______________________
________________________
S nchez-Betances & Sifre were on brief for appellee.
________________________
____________________
April 30, 1993
____________________
CYR,
CYR,
Hilda
Circuit Judge.
Circuit Judge.
_____________
Soltero
Harrington
After the
chapter 11
recovered judgment
in
estate of
an
adversary
The
late
Ponderosa's
bankruptcy court
filing,
and,
notice
of
reconsideration, which
denied
was denied.
Bankruptcy Rule
Ponderosa's motion
accordingly,
appeal.
notice of
declined
Ponderosa
Ponderosa
to
moved
to
docket
for
denial of
Following
8002(c)
Ponderosa's
remanded
original notice
with
of appeal.
bankruptcy
reconsideration of the
directions to
Appellants
docket
now appeal
158(d)
unless
conclusively determines
case."
it
is
"a discrete
1991); Tringali v.
________
Cir.
"final,"
dispute
i.e.,
____
unless
within the
it
larger
(1st Cir.
553, 558
(1st
____________________
1Appellants are chapter 11 trustee
chapter 11 debtor Hilda Soltero Harrington.
David
Manzanal
and
over a
is
"final" because
it
directs the
resolving the
Ponderosa's
appeal from
motion
reconsideration.
for
8001.06
the
bankruptcy
court to
one issue
_____
placed
bankruptcy court's
We
disagree
in dispute
by
denial of
the
with
appellants'
analysis.
We
recognize
that
"'finality'
is [to
be]
given
necessary to
of bankruptcy proceedings.
806
F.2d
315,
316-17
(1st
to the
(relaxation
of
showing
proceedings deserve").2
of
"special
considerations
Nevertheless, a
bankruptcy
district court
remand
____________________
appeal were postponed until a plan of reorganization were confirmed, there would be no satisfactory way to vindicate the U.S.
Trustee's right to appoint, as there is no authority to appoint a
new trustee after confirmation" of a chapter 11 plan).
On
somewhat different grounds, we have permitted immediate appeals
from district court orders
lifting automatic stays.
See
___
3
order in an
intermediate appeal
adversary proceeding
is not
from a judgment
entered in
an
under section
158(d) of the Judicial Code, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a), (b); Fed.
___
R.
Bankr.
procedural
entire
P.
and
7054(a),
9002,
substantive
appeal.3
Were
9014,
issues
unless
necessary
appellate review
it
resolves
to
available
all
conclude the
on
demand
had
"finality" rule
been resolved,
the
would be
eviscerated.
Tringali, 796 F.2d at 557; see also G.S.F. Corp., 938 F.2d at
________
___ ____ _____________
1473 (citing In re Chateaugay Corp., 880 F.2d 1509, 1512 (2d Cir.
______________________
1989)). But see infra note 3.
not finally
determine a cause
of action
but
to
adjudicate the
cause
on the
merits,'
the
is considered
Cir. 1973)).
(1st
1984)).
current
_______
Moreover,
the
narrow issue
F.2d 26, 29
(7th Cir.
Ponderosa's
bankruptcy
court's denial
been decided.
of the
Nevertheless,
original notice
of appeal
has now
of Ponderosa's
of the
bankruptcy
will remain
the
appellants,
district
to be
determined in
court
resolve
the present
appeal from
the
the district
merits
favorably
the district
obviate[d] . . . ."
Bowers
______
court.
to
court remand
v. Connecticut
___________
Nat'l Bank, 847 F.2d 1019, 1023 (2d Cir. 1988); Riggsby, 745 F.2d
__________
_______
at 1155-56.
Thus, the
appealable
under
28 U.S.C.
158(a),(d).
See Fed. R.
___
Civ. P. 54(a),(b);
no
cognizable
consideration
"hardship"
is
or
demonstrated
simply
of litigating an
by
intermediate
appeal to its
conclusion in
Noroeste, 806
________
F.2d
special
See
___
Empresas
________
of litigation . . .
jurisdiction
similar reasons,
over
we reject
an interlocutory
order.").
Harrington's attempts to
For
invoke the
Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), and our mandamus jurisdiction, see 28
_____
___
U.S.C.
challenged
1651,
neither
interlocutory
of
which
ruling
Appeal of Licht
is
would
available
result
unless
in "irreparable
& Semonoff,
the
judgment.
571 (1st
___
Cir.
____
___________________________
1986)
("collateral
"irreparable harm");
order"
doctrine requires
showing
of
F.2d 1000,
of