eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-12

Grace Baek v. John Halvorson ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                               FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 3 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GRACE BAEK; RICHARD BAEK;                        No.   19-55816
BAEK 153, LLC; PACIFIC
COMMERCIAL GROUP, LLC,                           D.C. No. 8:18-cv-00143-JVS
Appellants,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
JOHN OLAF HALVORSON; WENETA
M.A. KOSMALA, Chapter 7 Trustee;
DAN HALVORSON; JERRY ANN
RANDALL,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Grace Baek, Richard Baek, Baek 153, LLC, and Pacific Commercial Group,
LLC (collectively, “the Baeks”) appeal the district court’s order affirming the
bankruptcy court’s order denying the Baeks’ motion to recuse the bankruptcy
judge in the main bankruptcy proceeding. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of the Baeks’ motion to recuse the
bankruptcy judge. Denial of a motion to recuse is not a final order. See Stewart
Enters., Inc. v. Horton (In re Horton),
    621 F.2d 968
    , 970 (9th Cir. 1980); United
States v. Washington,
    573 F.2d 1121
    , 1122 (9th Cir. 1978). The pragmatic
approach to finality in bankruptcy appeals under
    28 U.S.C. § 158
    (d)(1) does not
change this conclusion. See Eden Place, LLC v. Perl (In re Perl),
    811 F.3d 1120
    ,
1126–27 (9th Cir. 2016); SS Farms, LLC v. Sharp (In re SK Foods, L.P.),
    676 F.3d 798
    , 802 (9th Cir. 2012). A bankruptcy court order is final under § 158(d)(1) when
it “1) resolves and seriously affects substantive rights and 2) finally determines the
discrete issue to which it is addressed.” Gugliuzza v. FTC (In re Gugliuzza),
    852 F.3d 884
    , 894 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). The order
denying the Baeks’ motion to recuse is not final; it merely preserves the status quo.
The bankruptcy judge’s actions “may be reviewed throughout the bankruptcy
proceedings” and may be revisited later should additional grounds for recusal
become apparent. SK Foods, 676 F.3d at 802; see also Liteky v. United States, 510
    2 U.S. 540
    , 543,
    114 S. Ct. 1147
    , 1151,
    127 L. Ed. 2d 474
     (1994).1
DISMISSED.
1
The fact that the Baeks chose to file their recusal motion in the main
bankruptcy proceeding rather than in the bankruptcy adversary proceedings where
the alleged bases for recusal arose does not affect our conclusion.
3