# Bradley Taggart v. Stuart Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 22, 2014 · 575 F. App'x 719

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2675476

## Case

- **Full name:** Bradley Weston TAGGART, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stuart M. BROWN, Defendant, and Terry W. Emmert; Keith Jehnke; Sherwood Park Business Center, LLC, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 22, 2014
- **Citations:** 575 F. App'x 719
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Alarcón, Tashima, Ikuta
- **Nature of suit:** Bankruptcy
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2675476

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 22 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

BRADLEY WESTON TAGGART, No. 12-35781

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12 cv-0236 MO

v.
MEMORANDUM*
STUART M. BROWN,

Defendant,

And

TERRY W. EMMERT; KEITH JEHNKE;
SHERWOOD PARK BUSINESS
CENTER, LLC,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 16, 2014
Portland, Oregon

Before: ALARCÓN, TASHIMA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Defendants-Appellants appeal the district court’s decision reversing the

bankruptcy court and remanding for further proceedings. We dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d).

“Our jurisdiction under section 158(d) . . . requires a final decision from the

district court.” Stanley v. Crossland, Crossland, Chambers, MacArthur & Lastreto

(In re Lakeshore Vill. Resort, Ltd.), 81 F.3d 103, 105 (9th Cir. 1996). Considering

“(1) the need to avoid piecemeal litigation; (2) judicial efficiency; (3) the systemic

interest in preserving the bankruptcy court’s role as the finder of fact; and (4)

whether delaying review would cause either party irreparable harm,” id. at 106

(citing Vylene Enters., Inc. v. Naugles, Inc. (In re Vylene Enters., Inc.), 968 F.2d

887, 895-96 (9th Cir. 1992)), we hold that the district court’s decision, which

remanded to the bankruptcy court for further factual findings, does not constitute a

final order under § 158(d). See Congrejo Invs., LLC v. Mann (In re Bender), 586

F.3d 1159, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2009).

The appeal from the district court is hereby DISMISSED, and the case is

REMANDED for further proceedings. No costs.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2675476. Public record. Not legal advice.