Carey v. Charlie Y. Inc. (In re Carey)
- Summarized by James Webster , Law Office of James Portman Webster, PLLC
- 10 years 6 months ago
- Carey v. Charlie Y. Inc (In re Carey). B.R. - (9th Cir. Nov 21, 2012)
- (Not for Publication) The Ninth Circuit held the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") decision was not sufficiently final, therefore, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In order for the 9th Circuit to have jurisdiction, the issue on appeal must be a final decision, judgment, order, or decree entered by the BAP. In order to retain jurisdiction, the 9th Circuit determined the following four factors were not satisfied: 1), need to avoid piecemeal litigation; 2) judicial efficiency; 3) the systematic interest in preserving the bankruptcy court's role as the finder of fact; and 4) whether delaying review would cause either party irreparable harm. The 9th Circuit denied the appeal because the facts of the case failed all four factors.
- Procedural context:
- At the Bankruptcy Court, Charlie Y. Inc. Appellee, was denied an attorney fee application. on appeal to BAP, the three member panel reversed the Court level determination to deny attorney fees of Charlie Y. Inc Appellee. Carey Appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Charlie Y. Inc, by Motion, sought attorney fees and was denied by a final Bankruptcy Court Order. On appeal to BAP, the decision remanded the issue of determining attorney fees to the Bankruptcy Court.
- Farris, Fernandez, and Bybee, Ci
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!