60 F.4th 664
11th Cir.2023Background
- Esteva (with wife Otero) opened a UBS account after UBS lent him roughly $2 million under promissory notes; UBS’s client agreement purported to secure debts with a security interest in the account.
- UBS fired Esteva in 2017 and froze the account to secure repayment under the Promissory Notes.
- Esteva filed bankruptcy and, with Otero, brought an adversary proceeding seeking declaratory relief (tenancy-by-the-entirety exemption and no valid UBS lien), turnover, and unjust enrichment; UBS counterclaimed for a perfected lien, avoidance, and setoffs.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment; the bankruptcy court granted judgment on all claims except Plaintiffs’ unjust-enrichment count and entered a partial final judgment leaving that count for trial.
- UBS appealed; the district court affirmed. While the appeal to this Court was pending, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the remaining unjust-enrichment claim — but the Eleventh Circuit held the stipulation invalid and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate jurisdiction exists over a bankruptcy-court partial final judgment resolving some but not all claims in an adversary proceeding | Partial final judgment is "final" for discrete bankruptcy disputes (relying on a flexible finality approach) | Appeal is premature because adversary proceeding still has a live claim; Rule 54(b) certification required | No jurisdiction; adversary partial judgment not final absent Rule 54(b); In re Boca controls |
| Whether Bullard and Ritzen change the finality rule for appeals from adversary proceedings | Bullard/Ritzen permit treating discrete bankruptcy decisions as final | Those cases do not overrule Eleventh Circuit precedent requiring complete resolution in adversary proceedings | Bullard and Ritzen are not on point and do not abrogate In re Boca; prior-panel precedent binds |
| Whether any exceptions (collateral order, practical finality, marginal finality) allow interlocutory review | Exceptions apply because the lien ruling is separable or delay would cause harm | Exceptions inapplicable: ruling is not collateral, no national significance, and no irreparable harm shown | Exceptions do not apply; no irreparable harm proven and exceptions are cabined |
| Whether the parties’ stipulation dismissing the lone remaining claim cured the premature appeal under the cumulative-finality (Jetco) doctrine and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) (via Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7041) | Stipulation under Rule 41 (as made applicable by Rule 7041) dismissed the remaining claim and produced final judgment, ripening the appeal | Rule 41(a)(1)(A) permits dismissal only of an entire action, not a single claim; stipulation therefore invalid and cannot cure jurisdictional defect | Stipulation invalid on its face; Rule 41(a)(1)(A) requires dismissal of the whole action (Perry and precedent); cumulative-finality not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496 (2015) (held denial of a Chapter 13 plan was not final because process of plan confirmation continued)
- Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 582 (2020) (held certain discrete bankruptcy proceedings can be final for appealability purposes when they constitute separate proceedings)
- Dzikowski v. Boomer’s Sports & Rec. Ctr., Inc. (In re Boca Arena, Inc.), 184 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1999) (adversary proceeding decision must resolve all claims against all parties to be final absent Rule 54(b))
- Perry v. Schumacher Grp. of La., 891 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2018) (stipulated dismissal of a single claim is invalid under Rule 41(a)(1)(A))
- Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d 1378 (11th Cir. 1986) (doctrine of cumulative finality: premature notice may be cured by subsequent final judgment)
- Jetco Elec. Indus., Inc. v. Gardiner, 473 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir. 1973) (origin of the cumulative-finality "Jetco" doctrine)
- Providers Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Grp., Inc. (In re Tidewater Grp., Inc.), 734 F.2d 794 (11th Cir. 1984) (court lacks jurisdiction to review nonfinal bankruptcy orders)