In Re Ardas Yanik, Debtor. Julian Ayrs v. Ardas Yanik David Horowitz, Hon. Lawrence A. Diamant

Good Law
8 F.3d 34·1993 WL 414203·1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 34084
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 18, 199392-56291California308 words

Opinion

Opinion

8 F.3d 34 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. In re Ardas YANIK, Debtor. Julian AYRS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ardas YANIK; David Horowitz, Hon.; Lawrence A. Diamant, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-56291. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 20, 1993. * Decided Oct. 18, 1993. Before: FLETCHER, POOLE, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Judgment creditor Julian Ayrs appeals pro se the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's ("BAP") order dismissing his appeal of the bankruptcy court's order quashing a subpoena Ayrs served on California Superior Court Judge David Horowitz. The BAP dismissed the appeal on the ground that the bankruptcy court's order was a nonappealable interlocutory order. We lack jurisdiction over Ayrs's appeal. 3 "Interlocutory orders [of the bankruptcy court] are not appealable as of right" and are "not appealable to the court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d)." Pizza of Hawaii, Inc. v. Shakey's Inc. (In re…

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.