Caterbone v. PPL Electric Utilities (In Re Caterbone) ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-15-2008
In Re: Caterbone
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3054
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Caterbone " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1741.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1741
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-39 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3054
___________
IN RE: STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
Debtor
STANLEY J. CATERBONE; ADVANCED MEDIA GROUP
v.
PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES
STANLEY J. CATERBONE,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-05117)
District Judge: Honorable Anita B. Brody
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to Jurisdictional Defect, or Under 28 U.S.C.
1915(e)(2)(B), or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 1, 2007
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion filed: January 15, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Stanley J. Caterbone appeals, pro se, from the district court’s order dismissing his
bankruptcy appeal. For the following reasons, this appeal must be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
I.
The parties are familiar with the background of this case. Stanley J. Caterbone
filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy action in August 2006 naming appellee as the defendant.
On August 18, 2006, the bankruptcy court issued a pre-trial order setting forth the dates,
times, and conditions under which discovery would be conducted in the proceeding. In a
notice dated October 21, 2006, Caterbone filed an appeal of this order to the district court.
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for, inter alia, Caterbone’s failure to follow
the time prescriptions contained in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a) and
because the appeal was taken from a non-final order issued by the bankruptcy court. In
an order entered on June 18, 2007, the district court agreed and, in an explanatory
footnote, seemingly dismissed the appeal for being untimely. Caterbone filed a timely
notice of appeal.1
II.
1
The parties were informed that this appeal would be subject to dismissal for a
jurisdictional defect. We review our jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. §
158(d)(1). “Although district courts have discretion to hear interlocutory appeals from
bankruptcy courts, [28 U.S.C.] § 158(d) does not grant courts of appeals similar
discretion to review interlocutory decisions. ‘The courts of appeals do not have
jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals in bankruptcy cases.’” In re Rains, 428 F.3d
893, 900-01 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted).
-2-
The bankruptcy court order Caterbone appealed from was interlocutory and thus
we do not have appellate jurisdiction. “The finality issue must be resolved with respect to
the decisions of both the bankruptcy judge and the district court.” In re White Beauty
View, Inc., 841 F.2d 524, 526 (3d Cir. 1988). “We consider four factors in determining
whether we should exercise jurisdiction over a bankruptcy appeal: ‘(1) [t]he impact on the
assets of the bankrupt estate; (2) [the][n]ecessity for further fact-finding on remand; (3)
[t]he preclusive effect of [the Court's] decision on the merits of further litigation; and (4)
[t]he interest of judicial economy.’” In re Owens Corning, 419 F.3d 195, 203 (3d Cir.
2005) (citing Buncher Co. v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Genfarm Ltd.
P'ship IV, 229 F.3d 245, 250 (3d Cir. 2000)). “We apply a broader concept of ‘finality’
when considering bankruptcy appeals under § 1291 than we do when considering other
civil orders under the same section.” In re Marvel Entm’t Group, Inc., 140 F.3d 463, 470
(3d Cir. 1998). But “[d]espite that relaxed view of finality in the bankruptcy setting as a
whole, the general antipathy toward piecemeal appeals still prevails in individual
adversary actions.” In re Natale, 295 F.3d 375, 378-79 (3d Cir. 2002).
Even under this more flexible standard of finality, the bankruptcy court’s order
was not a final order. The bankruptcy court merely issued a preliminary procedural order
concerning the manner in which discovery was to take place during the bankruptcy
proceeding. Thus, because Caterbone attempted to appeal from an interlocutory order,
not a final order, in the district court, we dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate
-3-
jurisdiction.2
2
Given our disposition, we need not reach the issue of untimeliness. See Fed. R.
Bank. P. 8002; see also 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2)
-4-