Parker

MEMORANDUM

The Parkers appeal the district court’s dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction. The district court held it lacked jurisdiction because the case was not final. We also lack jurisdiction. The parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of *687 the case; therefore, we will not recount it here.

The Parkers contend that because a central remaining issue was decided on an earlier appeal, not only should the bankruptcy court have granted the Parkers’ request for entry of judgment, but when the bankruptcy court refused, the district court should have heard the appeal because it involved a single issue that had been finally decided. However, when rejecting the Parkers’ motion for entry of judgment, the bankruptcy court made clear there was not a final judgment because other issues remained, including a claim based on “estoppel by deed.” After the district court decided one issue and remanded the case to the bankruptcy court, the bankruptcy court was free to conclude that other issues remained to be decided. Nguyen v. United States, 792 F.2d 1500, 1502 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that when an appellate court remands a case, the lower court is free to consider…