9th Cir.

In re PARKS DIVERSIFIED, L.P. DEBTOR TALON DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS INC.; NORTH VALLEY MALL II

July 23, 2026 ·8:24-cv-00227-SVW ·Unpublished · By Maria Santos

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed an appeal regarding a remand order to state court due to lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's finding that the bankruptcy court had subject-matter jurisdiction over core bankruptcy claims and upheld Rule eleven sanctions against the appellants.

Background

Appellants Richard and Lucia Parks, along with their affiliated entities, appealed a district court order that had affirmed a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of claims against various defendants and imposed sanctions. Cross-appellants, including David Klein and several law firms, appealed the district court’s order directing the bankruptcy court to remand claims to state court. The underlying dispute involved allegations that a Chapter eleven petition was filed without authority and that defendants enabled the expulsion of the Parkses from their partnership.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that under Section fourteen hundred forty-seven of Title twenty-eight of the United States Code, it lacks jurisdiction to review an order remanding a case to state court, regardless of whether the remand was based on procedural defects or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court affirmed that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over core claims that could arise only in a bankruptcy context and ancillary jurisdiction to effectuate its decree based on a stipulation that retained jurisdiction. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s imposition of sanctions because the appellants’ request for clarification was frivolous given the clarity of the remand order.

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces the finality of remand orders to state court and confirms the broad jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts over core proceedings and related stipulations. It also signals that motions seeking clarification of clear orders may be subject to sanctions if deemed frivolous.