Opinion
22-1751
03-23-2023
In re: FRED YEN MING CHU; MEIYU CHU, Debtors. FU QUAN LI, Creditor - Appellant, FRED YEN MING CHU; MEIYU CHU, Debtors - Appellees.
John Christopher Belcher, North Beach, Maryland, for Appellant. Raymond Yu, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 21, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:21-cv-02717-PX; 8:21-cv-02487-PX)
ON BRIEF:
John Christopher Belcher, North Beach, Maryland, for Appellant.
Raymond Yu, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Fu Quan Li seeks to appeal the district court's order: (1) denying his motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal from the bankruptcy court's order reopening the Debtors' bankruptcy case, and (2) vacating the bankruptcy court's order granting the Debtors' motion to avoid Li's judicial lien and remanding to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.
With respect to the district court's denial of leave to file an interlocutory appeal, we have reviewed the record on appeal and the arguments of the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district court's order. Li v. Chu, Nos. 8:21-cv-02717-PX; 8:21-cv-02487-PX (D. Md. June 13, 2022).
We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Li's appeal from the portion of the district court's order vacating the bankruptcy court's decision and remanding for further proceedings. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Li seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny the motion for leave to file a supplemental appendix, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART