Sun

Maxitile, Inc. v. Sun

Good Law
237 F. App'x 274
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 22, 2007No. 05-56273California832 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*275 MEMORANDUM **

Maxitile, Inc. appeals the district court’s reversal of the bankruptcy court’s contempt order against Jiming Sun. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158 , 1291. We affirm.

The district court correctly found that Sun’s notice of appeal was timely, because the contempt order entered by the bankruptcy court did not constitute a separate final judgment, as required under Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, made applicable to bankruptcy courts by Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9021. To comply with Rule 58, “[a] sheet containing the judgment, usually prepared by the clerk, must be ‘distinct from any opinion or memorandum.’ ” Allah v. Superior Court, 871 F.2d 887, 890 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Vernon v. Heckler, 811 F.2d 1274, 1276 (9th Cir.1987)). Here, the contempt order contained sufficient discussion of facts and reasoning such that it was an opinion or memorandum, and thus it cannot be considered a separate final judgment which starts the clock for the filing of an appeal. See Mitchell v. Idaho, 814 F.2d 1404, 1405 (9th Cir.1987); cf. United States v. Schimmels (In re Schimmels), 85 F.3d 416, 421-22, 422 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that “a brief order that gives no detailed explanations…

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.