Wilson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., 24-6897 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2026)
Wilson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., 24-6897 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2026), a new 9th circuit decision in a bky case, about 3 things required for appellate ct to hear an appeal of an interlocutory order: Just because an order was ‘final’ for an appeal in district court doesn’t mean there is jurisdiction for a second appeal if the district court remands.
Ninth Circuit Covers the 3 ‘Hooks’ for Appellate Jurisdiction over Interlocutory Orders
As demonstrated by an opinion from the Ninth Circuit, the fact that the district court had appellate jurisdiction over a final order doesn’t necessarily mean that the circuit court will have jurisdiction in the next appeal.
Cutting through unnecessary details, the pertinent facts were these: Individual debtors in chapter 13 had several litigated disputes with their mortgage lender. Ultimately, the bankruptcy court dismissed all of the debtors’ claims against the lender.
On appeal, the debtors’ fortunes improved. The district court affirmed the dismissal of some claims but reversed and remanded on others. The debtors appealed to the Ninth Circuit, hoping the court of appeals would reinstate the claims where the district court upheld dismissal.
In a nonprecedential, per curiam opinion on February 5, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
The panel began by saying that a circuit court has appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 and 158(d)(1). The panel had “no difficulty” in concluding there was no jurisdiction under Sections 1291 and 1292.
Under Section 1291, circuit courts have appellate jurisdiction over “all final decisions of the district courts . . . .” Quoting the circuit’s authority in Gugliuzza v. FTC (In re Gugliuzza), 852 F.3d 884, 898 (9th Cir. 2017), the panel said, “‘We do not have jurisdiction under § 1291 because the district court’s order did not end the litigation on the merits and leave nothing for the district court to do but execute the judgment.’”
“On the contrary,” the panel said, the district court’s order “remanded multiple issues for the bankruptcy court to address.”
Under Section 1292, the district court may certify an interlocutory appeal to the circuit court if the district court believes “there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation . . . .” The circuit court has discretion to hear the appeal, or not.
Again quoting Gugliuzza, the panel said there was no appellate jurisdiction “‘because the district court did not certify its decision for interlocutory review.’” Id.
If there were to be appellate jurisdiction, the panel said it would be “under § 158(d), which is what typically controls our jurisdiction over district court orders reviewing bankruptcy court rulings.” Section 158(d)(1) provides that the “courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees entered under subsections (a) and (b) of this section.”
Quoting York v. IRS (In re York), 78 F.4th 1074, 1083 (9th Cir. 2023), the panel said, “‘Section 158(d)(1), in turn, grants the courts of appeals jurisdiction over ‘appeals from all final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees’ entered by district courts under § 158(a).’” [Emphasis in original.] Next quoting the Supreme Court, the panel said, “The standards for judging finality ‘are different in [the] bankruptcy’ context. Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496, 501 (2015).”
Bullard went on to say that “orders in bankruptcy cases may be immediately appealed if they finally dispose of discrete disputes within the larger case.” Id.
Honing on the facts of the case on appeal, the panel again quoted York where the circuit held “that a bankruptcy court judgment ‘dispos[ing] of all claims raised in [an] adversary complaint’ is sufficiently ‘final’ for purposes of §§ 158(a)(1) and (d)(1) and that an ‘appeal from the district court’s affirmance thereof [is] from a final judgment for jurisdictional purposes.’” York, supra, 78 F.4th at 1083.
Although the district court had appellate jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court had dismissed all claims, the panel pointed out that “the district court here did not affirm that order but instead vacated it in part and remanded for further proceedings concerning the [debtors’ claims] related to ‘whether [the lender] was a qualified successor trustee.’” Therefore, the panel said, the district court’s order “did not end the adversary action, nor did it ‘fix the rights and obligations’” of any party. Gugliuzza, supra, 852 F.3d at 898.
Because “key issues” remained after remand, the panel said, “it would be inefficient to engage in piecemeal review of a particular sub-issue resolved in the district court’s order. Id. at 899.”
Holding that “this case does not meet even the more liberal finality standard under § 158(d),” the panel dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.