Pinpoint IT Services, LLC v. Rivera (In Re Atlas IT Export Corp.)
761 F.3d 177
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Pinpoint IT Services, LLC (Virginia) and Atlas IT Export Corp. trustee Noemi Landrau Rivera (Puerto Rico) engaged in parallel federal suits over a 2009 contract.
- Atlas sought to modify the automatic stay to proceed in Puerto Rico; Pinpoint sought to lift the stay to continue in Virginia and to invoke the first-filed rule.
- Atlas filed for Chapter 7; Pinpoint filed a proof of claim for $75,000; trustee and Atlas sought stay relief influencing parallel litigation.
- Bankruptcy court modified the stay to allow Puerto Rico action to proceed to judgment, including Pinpoint’s counterclaim, prompting Pinpoint to seek further stay relief; court declined.
- BAP dismissed Pinpoint’s appeal for lack of finality; Pinpoint appealed to the First Circuit, challenging jurisdiction and the stay-relief order.
- First Circuit ultimately held the stay-denial order is not a final order for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). The court rejected a blanket rule and applied a case-specific finality test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BAP dismissal was proper as final? | Pinpoint asserts finality because stay denial resolved all bankruptcy issues. | Atlas argues the order is not final since it leaves unresolved forum/first-filed issues for later litigation. | Not final; order not appealable as of right |
| Whether denials of stay relief are always final | Pinpoint urges blanket rule that denial of stay relief is final. | Atlas contends blanket rule is wrong; finality depends on circumstances. | No blanket rule; finality depends on whether the order conclusively decided a discrete, unreviewable issue |
| Does the Puerto Rico action’s consideration of the first-filed rule affect finality | First-filed issue determination should occur in Virginia; denial of stay should be final. | Puerto Rico action may decide the first-filed issue; thus not final as to Pinpoint’s stay appeal. | Court looked to whether the stay order conclusively decided the first-filed issue; it did not |
| Should jurisdiction be limited by intervening adversary proceedings in bankruptcy | Adversary proceeding presence supports finality analysis. | Adversary status does not cure non-finality of the stay-denial order. | Adversary proceedings do not convert the stay order into a final decision for purposes of appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Codex Corp. v. Milgo Elec. Corp., 553 F.2d 735 (1st Cir.1977) (venue-transfer orders generally not appealable as of right)
- In re Parque Forestal, Inc., 949 F.2d 504 (1st Cir.1991) (finality in bankruptcy measured by practicality and dispositive nature)
- Tringali v. Hathaway Mach. Co., 796 F.2d 553 (1st Cir.1986) (finality includes issues that cannot be reviewed elsewhere)
- Calore Express Co., 288 F.3d 22 (1st Cir.2002) (discussed treatment of stay-denial finality but not a blanket rule)
- In re Sonnax Indus., Inc., 907 F.2d 1280 (2d Cir.1990) (jurisdictional rulings should not undeviatingly rely on labels; assess finality)