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July 23, 2026 ·8:24-cv-00227-SVW ·Unpublished · By Maria Santos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 related 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 defendants Klein, Kimura, and Becker, appealed the district court’s order directing the bankruptcy court to remand claims to state court. The district court had previously rejected the bankruptcy court’s finding of removal jurisdiction and ordered the claims remanded.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s order remanding claims to state court because section one thousand four hundred forty-seven of title twenty-eight of the United States Code bars appellate review of such remand orders, regardless of whether the remand was based on procedural defects or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court affirmed that the bankruptcy court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the core claims against Goe Forsythe and K&W because those claims could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s imposition of Rule eleven sanctions, noting that 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 bankruptcy matters, while signaling that frivolous motions for clarification in the face of clear orders may result in sanctions.