Jeannette Corp., In re, No. 87-3112

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore GIBBONS, Chief Judge, WEIS; WEIS
Citation832 F.2d 43
Parties, Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,019 In re JEANNETTE CORPORATION. Appeal of GOLDSTEIN & MANELLO.
Docket NumberNo. 87-3112
Decision Date30 October 1987

Page 43

832 F.2d 43
9 Fed.R.Serv.3d 412, Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,019
In re JEANNETTE CORPORATION.
Appeal of GOLDSTEIN & MANELLO.
No. 87-3112.
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Argued Aug. 19, 1987.
Decided Oct. 30, 1987.

Page 44

William M. Wycoff (argued), Julie A. Maloney, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellants.

Douglas A. Campbell (argued), David P. Braun, Campbell & Levine, Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

Before GIBBONS, Chief Judge, WEIS, Circuit Judge, and KELLY, * District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

This appeal challenges a district court's affirmance of a bankruptcy judge's order finding that counsel had violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 as well as Bankruptcy Rule 9011 and directing that a hearing be held to determine whether sanctions should be imposed. We conclude that because sanctions have not been fixed, the order is interlocutory and nonappealable. Likewise, the affirmance of the bankruptcy judge's order denying the debtor's motion to compel performance of certain actions by the trustee is nonappealable.

The orders appealed from are part of a long-running Chapter 11 proceeding but the jurisdictional issues presented to us are narrow. After an extensive hearing, the bankruptcy judge decided that the firm of Goldstein and Manello, counsel for debtor Jeannette Corporation, had filed a motion that was "patently in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 9011 of the Bankruptcy Rules." The court stated: "It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that a further hearing shall be scheduled by and at the convenience of the Court to determine what, if

Page 45

any, sanctions shall emanate as a result of this Memorandum Opinion and Order."

Before the bankruptcy judge could convene further proceedings, the debtor's attorney filed an appeal in the district court, as well as an appeal from the related order denying a motion to compel the trustee to perform certain duties. The district court affirmed both orders. The debtor's counsel appeals the affirmance of both the sanction order and the denial of the motion to compel.

The parties assert that we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 158(d) (Supp. III 1985). Despite this concession, however, we have a duty to raise the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte. Eavenson, Auchmuty & Greenwald v. Holtzman, 775 F.2d 535, 537 n. 1 (3d Cir.1985). See also Cannon v. Hawaii Corp., 796 F.2d 1139 (9th Cir.1986).

The appealability of orders issued by bankruptcy judges is governed by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 158 (Supp. III 1985). Section 158(a) authorizes district courts to hear appeals from "final judgments, orders, and decrees, and, with leave of the court, from interlocutory orders and decrees, of bankruptcy judges." Section 158(d) provides that "[t]he courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees entered under subsection[ ] (a)."

The statutory language clearly authorizes the district courts to grant leave to hear appeals from interlocutory orders. It is equally plain that no such power is granted to the courts of appeals; rather, our jurisdiction is limited to final orders and judgments.

In the past we have observed that the unique considerations attendant to bankruptcy appeals permit us to be "somewhat less concerned about the dangers of interpreting finality in appeals under section 1293(b) 1 [in a manner] slightly more broadly than in appeals under section 1291." Moxley v. Comer (In re Comer), 716 F.2d 168, 171 (3d Cir.1983), quoting Official Unsecured Creditors' Comm. v. Michals, 689 F.2d 445, 449 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1206, 103 S.Ct. 1196, 75 L.Ed.2d 440 (1983). That approach addresses such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 practice notes
  • Pruitt, In re, No. 89-3688
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 21 September 1990
    ...relaxed view of bankruptcy orders cannot impart appellate jurisdiction without some vestige of finality. See id.; In re Jeannette Corp., 832 F.2d 43, 45-46 (3d At least five courts of appeals have held that decisions to grant or deny motions for withdrawal of the reference are interlocutory......
  • U.S. v. Nicolet, Inc., Nos. 88-1079
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 16 September 1988
    ...838 F.2d 698, 701 (3d Cir.1988); Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. McCune, 836 F.2d 153, 157-58 (3d Cir.1987); In re Jeannette Corp., 832 F.2d 43, 45 (3d Cir.1987); Southeastern Sprinkler Co. v. Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987); In re Christian, 804 F.2d 46, 48 (3d Cir.1986......
  • F/S Airlease II, Inc. v. Simon, S-J
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 19 April 1988
    ...we have dismissed appeals because the district court had remanded are, on close examination, inapposite here. In In re Jeanette Corp., 832 F.2d 43 (3d Cir.1987), the district court had affirmed the bankruptcy court's order that the debtor's attorney violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and Bankruptcy R......
  • Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Central, Inc., No. 08-3073.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 1 September 2009
    ...that sanctions order was not final and appealable 580 F.3d 132 until entry of order determining sanctions amount); In re Jeannette Corp., 832 F.2d 43 (3d Cir.1987) The rule in Napier speaks to a different scenario than the one presented here. In Napier, we stated that the appeal of the sanc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
41 cases
  • Pruitt, In re, No. 89-3688
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 21 September 1990
    ...relaxed view of bankruptcy orders cannot impart appellate jurisdiction without some vestige of finality. See id.; In re Jeannette Corp., 832 F.2d 43, 45-46 (3d At least five courts of appeals have held that decisions to grant or deny motions for withdrawal of the reference are interlocutory......
  • U.S. v. Nicolet, Inc., Nos. 88-1079
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 16 September 1988
    ...838 F.2d 698, 701 (3d Cir.1988); Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. McCune, 836 F.2d 153, 157-58 (3d Cir.1987); In re Jeannette Corp., 832 F.2d 43, 45 (3d Cir.1987); Southeastern Sprinkler Co. v. Meyertech Corp., 831 F.2d 410, 414 (3d Cir.1987); In re Christian, 804 F.2d 46, 48 (3d Cir.1986......
  • F/S Airlease II, Inc. v. Simon, S-J
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 19 April 1988
    ...we have dismissed appeals because the district court had remanded are, on close examination, inapposite here. In In re Jeanette Corp., 832 F.2d 43 (3d Cir.1987), the district court had affirmed the bankruptcy court's order that the debtor's attorney violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and Bankruptcy R......
  • Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Central, Inc., No. 08-3073.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 1 September 2009
    ...that sanctions order was not final and appealable 580 F.3d 132 until entry of order determining sanctions amount); In re Jeannette Corp., 832 F.2d 43 (3d Cir.1987) The rule in Napier speaks to a different scenario than the one presented here. In Napier, we stated that the appeal of the sanc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT