Sahagun v. Landmark Fence Company, Inc. (In re Landmark Fence Company, Inc.)

Summarized by Thomas Phinney , Felderstein Fitzgerald Willoughby Pascuzzi & Rios LLP
10 years 5 months ago

Citation:

9th Cir. Nos. 13-55509, 13-55574 (September 4, 2015)

Tag(s):

Ruling:

The Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (lack of finality) an appeal and a cross-appeal from a district court’s order affirming in part and remanding in part for further factual findings a bankruptcy court judgment awarding certain wage and hour penalties on behalf of a class of former employees against the debtor.

Procedural context:

The bankruptcy court ruled, after a trial, that the debtor employer had committed violations of California wage and hour laws, and it awarded class action damages. The district court affirmed in part and remanded in part for additional fact findings relating to damages. Both parties appealed. The Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction because the district court’s order (vacating the bankruptcy court’s judgment and remanding for further factfinding) was not a final order.

Facts:

Plaintiff, a former employee of the debtor, was the representative in a class action for wage and hour violations by the debtor corporation. Plaintiff prevailed at trial in bankruptcy court, but on appeal the district court held that the bankruptcy court had applied an incorrect legal standard for assessing whether the debtor was required to pay prevailing wages for the time class members spent traveling to and from public worksites. The district court remanded for additional fact finding on the terms of the debtor’s public works contracts and the practical conditions of the jobsite to determine what damages might be justified. The Ninth Circuit found that even under the more flexible standard for finality that applies in bankruptcy cases, this flexible standard was stretched beyond its breaking point by this appeal. "As Chief Justice Roberts recently observed in the context of determining whether a bankruptcy court order is final, parties considering the filing of an appeal would do well to remember the maxim: 'It ain’t over till it’s over.' Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank (In re Bullard), 135 S. Ct. 1686, 1693 (2015)."

Judge(s):

Stephen Reinhardt, M. Margaret McKeown, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

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!