In re: KEVAN HARRY GILMAN v. Kevan Harry Gilman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: KEVAN HARRY GILMAN,
Debtor,
TAMMY R. PHILLIPS; TAMMY R.
PHILLIPS, A PROF. LAW CORP.,
Appellants,
v.
KEVAN HARRY GILMAN,
Appellee.
No. 12-55843
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-09327-DOC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Appellants Tammy R. Phillips and Tammy R. Phillips, a Professional Law
Corporation, appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their appeal of the
bankruptcy court’s order denying their special motion to strike an affirmative
defense in the adversary proceedings they brought against debtor Kevan Harry
Gilman. We review de novo both our own jurisdiction and whether a bankruptcy
court’s decision is final under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v.
City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot Springs), 339 F.3d 782, 787
(9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss.
We lack appellate jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court’s order denying
Appellants’ motion entitled “Special Motion to Strike Under California’s anti-
SLAPP Statute” is not a final decision. See Rains v. Flinn (In re Rains), 428 F.3d
893, 901 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that this court has jurisdiction only when both
the bankruptcy court order and the decision of the district court acting in its
bankruptcy appellate capacity are final orders); United States v. Fowler (In re
Fowler), 394 F.3d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing “pragmatic approach to
determining finality” of bankruptcy court orders and setting forth tests to determine
finality).
We deny Appellants’ request to treat their notice of appeal as a petition for
writ of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir.
12-55843 2

-- 2 of 3 --

1977) (discussing five factors to consider when deciding whether the
“extraordinary” remedy of mandamus is warranted).
All pending motions are denied.
DISMISSED.
12-55843 3

-- 3 of 3 --