UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20265
Summary Calendar
In the Matter of: RICHARD L. CHARLES; SHAUNA CHARLES,
Debtors.
_________________________________________________________________
RICHARD L. CHARLES; SHAUNA CHARLES,
Appellants,
VERSUS
METLIFE; ALLEN CENTER COMPANY;
ALLEN CENTER COMPANY #2; TIM MONROE,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-98-CV-3715)
November 23, 1999
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is an appeal from a district court order in a matter that
had been appealed from a bankruptcy court. Having determined that
we have no jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.
The Appellants, Richard and Shauna Charles are post-
confirmation Chapter 13 debtors. One of the assets of the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
bankruptcy estate is an adversary action by the Charleses against
Appellees Metlife, Allen Center Company, Allen Center Company #2
and Tim Monroe (referred to collectively as “Metlife”) arising out
of a landlord/tenant dispute. Metlife filed a motion in the
bankruptcy court to enforce a purported settlement of that dispute.
The bankruptcy court denied the motion and remanded the adversary
proceeding to state court. On appeal, the district court vacated
the bankruptcy court’s order denying the motion to enforce the
settlement, vacated the order remanding the adversary proceeding to
state court and remanded the case to the bankruptcy court to
determine whether the settlement agreement should be approved.
Our jurisdiction in this bankruptcy matter is limited to final
decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees entered by the district
court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). “Unlike a district court, which
has discretion to take jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from
the bankruptcy court, see 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), we have no such
discretion and are limited to reviewing only final orders.”
Andrews & Kurth L.L.P. v. Family Snacks, Inc. (Matter of Pro-Snax
Dist.), 157 F.3d 414, 420 (5th Cir. 1998). “[W]hen a district
court sitting as a court of appeals in bankruptcy remands a case to
the bankruptcy court for significant further proceedings, the
remand order is not ‘final’ and therefore not appealable under [28
U.S.C.] § 158(d).” Conroe Office Building Ltd. v. Nichols (Matter
of Nichols), 21 F.3d 690, 692 (5th Cir. 1994). Appellants contend,
in the alternative, that this court can exercise jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1993). For § 1291 purposes, a
2
district court order must likewise be final, that is, a decision
that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the
district court to do but execute judgment. See id.
Because the district court order that forms the basis of this
appeal is not final, we have no jurisdiction and must dismiss the
appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
3