Filed: Jul. 08, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-11086 Summary Calendar _ IN THE MATTER OF: ELDON GORDON Debtor. ELDON GORDON, Appellee, versus CITY OF GARLAND, TX, Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas 3:93-cv-1542-X _ June 12, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:* It is unfortunate that no end is yet in sight for this dispute that began in 1989 between Gordon and the City of Gar
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-11086 Summary Calendar _ IN THE MATTER OF: ELDON GORDON Debtor. ELDON GORDON, Appellee, versus CITY OF GARLAND, TX, Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas 3:93-cv-1542-X _ June 12, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:* It is unfortunate that no end is yet in sight for this dispute that began in 1989 between Gordon and the City of Garl..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 95-11086
Summary Calendar
_______________________
IN THE MATTER OF: ELDON GORDON
Debtor.
ELDON GORDON,
Appellee,
versus
CITY OF GARLAND, TX,
Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
3:93-cv-1542-X
_________________________________________________________________
June 12, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:*
It is unfortunate that no end is yet in sight for this
dispute that began in 1989 between Gordon and the City of Garland,
for this court is unable to resolve the issues the parties have put
before us. This court lacks jurisdiction, because the district
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
court’s order, which reversed the default judgment entered by the
bankruptcy court and remanded for further proceedings, is not a
final judgment. The appeal must be dismissed, and a brief
explanation will suffice.
As appellant’s brief makes plain, the bankruptcy court
entered a default judgment against Gordon and denied Gordon’s
motion to set aside the default judgment. Gordon filed a notice of
appeal to the district court on June 2, 1993. More than 2 years
later, the district court “held that the default judgment should
have been set aside and therefore reversed the orders of the
Bankruptcy Court and remanded the case to the Bankruptcy Court for
further proceedings” consistent with its opinion. Brief of
appellant at 6.
Courts of appeals have jurisdiction only over final
decisions of the district court sitting in review of bankruptcy
matters. 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). This circuit has held that when a
district court reverses and remands for “further significant
proceedings” an order of the bankruptcy court, the district court’s
order is not final. In re County Management, Inc.,
788 F.2d 311,
313-15 (5th Cir. 1986). So it is here. This court is powerless to
review the district court’s decision.
Although this court lacks jurisdiction, we sincerely hope
that the case will proceed with dispatch back in the bankruptcy
court.
Appeal DISMISSED.
2