Peter McCarthy v. Amy Goldman

Good Law
486 F. App'x 658
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 17, 201210-56743California215 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Peter Thomas McCarthy appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his interlocutory appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion to confirm that certain contractual rights were excluded from the estate. We review de novo our own jurisdiction and whether a bankruptcy court’s decision is final under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot Springs), 339 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss.

The bankruptcy court’s order denying McCarthy’s “motion to confirm [that] rejected executory contracts and rights thereunder were not estate property” is not a final decision over which we have appellate jurisdiction. See United States v. Fowler (In re Fowler), 394 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir.2005) (discussing “pragmatic approach to determining finality” of bankruptcy court orders and setting forth tests to determine finality); see also Rains v. Flinn (In re Rains), 428 F.3d 893, 901 (9th Cir.2005) (explaining that this court has jurisdiction only when both the bankruptcy court order and the decision of the district court acting in its bankruptcy appellate capacity are final…

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.