FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 05 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: JAMES ELLIS ARDEN, No. 15-60053
Debtor, BAP No. 14-1186
______________________________
MARTINA A. SILAS, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
JAMES ELLIS ARDEN,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Kurtz, Dunn, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 6, 2017
Submission Withdrawn February 17, 2017
Resubmitted June 30, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, IKUTA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Creditor Martina A. Silas appeals that Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s order
vacating summary judgment in her favor and remanding the case to the bankruptcy
court to determine whether debtor James Ellis Arden’s malicious prosecution of
Silas was “willful” for 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) purposes. We dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
Silas argues that we have jurisdiction to consider her appeal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d)(1), which permits consideration of “appeals from all final decisions,
judgments, orders, and decrees” issued by a district court or bankruptcy appellate
panel sitting in review of a bankruptcy court decision. Jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) is limited to appeals arising from final decisions, judgments,
orders, or decrees. Sahagun v. Landmark Fence Co. (In re Landmark Fence Co.),
801 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2015). An order in a bankruptcy case is final when
it “finally dispose[s] of discrete disputes within the larger case.” Howard Delivery
Serv. v. Zurich Am. Ins., 547 U.S. 651, 657 n.3 (2006) (emphasis omitted). Where
a bankruptcy court’s order does not “alter the status quo or fix the parties’ rights
and obligations,” it does not finally dispose of a discrete dispute. Gugliuzza v.
FTC (In re Gugliuzza), 852 F.3d 884, 897 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Bullard v. Blue
Hills Bank, 135 S. Ct. 1686, 1692 (2015)). Thus, for example, where a bankruptcy
2
court denies a debtor’s proposed confirmation plan and gives the debtor leave to
amend the proposed plan, the denial is not final because the “parties’ rights and
obligations remain unsettled.” Bullard, 135 S. Ct. at 1693.
Here, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision did not finally dispose of a
discrete dispute, alter the legal relationship between the parties, or fix the parties’
rights and obligations. It left the ultimate question of whether the judgment debt is
nondischargeable open and unresolved. The order therefore lacked finality, and so
we lack jurisdiction to consider Silas’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1).
DISMISSED.
3