In re: Peter Brown Kleidman, CC-17-1030-KuLTa

Peter Kleidman, a reorganized Chapter 11 debtor whose plan had been fully implemented and case closed, moved to reopen his bankruptcy case and sought (1) leave to file an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against his former broker (Hilton & Hyland) and alternatively (2) leave to pursue the same claims in state court.
The bankruptcy court granted leave to file the adversary proceeding but expressly denied the alternate request to pursue the claims in state court while the adversary was pending.
Kleidman filed a Rule 9023 motion to amend the order to strike the explicit denial of the alternate request, arguing the language might later be construed as a denial with prejudice and thus bar him from state-court relief if the bankruptcy court later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
At a hearing on a stay and the Rule 9023 motion, the bankruptcy court clarified that its denial of the alternate request was intended to be without prejudice and would not preclude Kleidman from seeking permission to litigate in state court if the adversary were later dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The bankruptcy court denied the stay and the Rule 9023 motion; Kleidman appealed both the original order and the denial of the Rule 9023 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kleidman has standing to appeal the court's express denial of his alternate request to pursue claims in state court	The explicit denial is unnecessary and may be construed as a denial with prejudice, potentially barring state-court claims later	The denial was procedural while the adversary is pending and the court clarified it was without prejudice and would not preclude future state-court permission if jurisdictional dismissal occurs	Kleidman lacks "person aggrieved" standing because the denial was without prejudice and did not meaningfully or pecuniarily affect his rights; appeal dismissed

Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2002) (court's construction of its own orders receives deference)
Harris v. Wittman (In re Harris), 590 F.3d 730 (9th Cir. 2009) (bankruptcy jurisdiction principles)
Maitland v. Mitchell (In re Harris Pine Mills), 44 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1995) (bankruptcy jurisdiction principles)
Veal v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. (In re Veal), 450 B.R. 897 (9th Cir. BAP 2011) (discussion of constitutional standing in bankruptcy context)
Fondiller v. Robertson (In re Fondiller), 707 F.2d 441 (9th Cir. 1983) ("person aggrieved" standard for bankruptcy appeals)
Duckor Spradling & Metzger v. Baum Trust (In re P.R.T.C., Inc.), 177 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 1999) (appealability requires showing order diminished property, increased burdens, or detrimentally affected rights)
Rosales v. Wallace (In re Wallace), 490 B.R. 898 (9th Cir. BAP 2013) (deference to bankruptcy court's interpretation of its orders)