# Klestadt & Winters, LLP v. Cangelosi

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 6, 2012 · 672 F.3d 809

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9485480

## Case

- **Full name:** KLESTADT & WINTERS, LLP; Tracy L. Klestadt, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Donna CANGELOSI; Certain Direct Lenders, Respondents-Appellees, and William A. Leonard, Chapter 7 Trustee, Trustee-Appellee; Bryan Cave LLP; Katherine M. Windler, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Donna Cangelosi; Certain Direct Lenders, Respondents-Appellees, and William A. Leonard, Chapter 7 Trustee, Trustee-Appellee; Silar Advisors, LP; Sara Pfrommer; Robert Leeds; Jay Gracin, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Donna Cangelosi; Certain Direct Lenders, Respondents-Appellees, and William A. Leonard, Chapter 7 Trustee, Trustee-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 6, 2012
- **Citations:** 672 F.3d 809; 2012 WL 695819
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Quist
- **Judges:** Graber, Ikuta, Quist
- **Cited by:** 11 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/9485480

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that "[a] final decision is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- holding that sanctions orders under Rule 9011 are not appealable collateral orders

## Opinion text

QUIST, Senior District Judge,
concurring:
All judges on the panel, including the undersigned, agree that Ninth Circuit precedent, particularly Cannon v. Hawaii Corp. (In re Hawaii Corp.), 796 F.2d 1139 (9th Cir.1986), requires this Court to dismiss this appeal because appellants “are unable to satisfy the threshold requirement of appellate jurisdiction.” In my judgment, once appellants fail to satisfy this threshold issue, the case is concluded — subject, of course, to whether the Ninth Circuit revisits the continuing viability of In re Hawaii Corp. As to whether the rule of In re Hawaii Corp. should be revisited or changed is not for me to say. If the rule of In re Hawaii Corp. is changed en banc, the issue of appellate jurisdiction can be revisited under the facts of this particular case, which are accurately set forth in Part I of Judge Ikuta’s Opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9485480. Public record. Not legal advice.