James Sahagun v. Landmark Fence Co.

Good Law
801 F.3d 1099·25 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 547·61 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 145·2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16159
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 11, 201513-55509, 13-55574California2,029 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKEOWN, J.

As Chief Justice Roberts recently observed in the context of determining whether a bankruptcy court order is final, parties considering the filing of an appeal would do well to remember the maxim: “It ain’t over till it’s over.” Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank (In re Bullard), — U.S.-, 185 S.Ct. 1686 , 1693, 191 L.Ed.2d 621 (2015). While we have well-established and quite rigid standards of finality in civil and criminal actions governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1291 — our most frequently invoked jurisdictional statute — we have taken a more nuanced and “flexible” approach to assessing the finality of appeals in bankruptcy cases. However, even this flexible approach is stretched beyond its breaking point by this appeal from a district court order that includes a remand to the bankruptcy court with explicit instructions to engage in “further fact-finding.” We dismiss the appeal because this order is not final for purposes of appeal.

BACKGROUND

In 2008, James Sahagun and Gerardo Garcia (collectively “Sahagun”) filed a class action in state court against their former employer, Landmark Fence Company (“Landmark”). The suit was a typical wage-and-hour class action, alleging that Landmark…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.