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July 23, 2026 ·8:24-cv-00227-SVW ·Unpublished · By Maria Santos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 from a district court order that resolved an appeal from a bankruptcy court’s dismissal of claims against various defendants. The district court also imposed sanctions on the appellants. Cross-appellants, including David Klein and several law firms, appealed from the district court’s order directing the bankruptcy court to remand claims to state court.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over the cross-appellants’ appeal of the remand order because section fourteen hundred forty-seven of title twenty-eight of the United States Code bars appellate review of orders remanding cases to state court. The court affirmed that the bankruptcy court had subject-matter jurisdiction over core claims that could arise only in a bankruptcy case and ancillary jurisdiction to effectuate its decree under a stipulation. The court further found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s imposition of Rule eleven sanctions, as 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, while signaling that frivolous motions for clarification may result in sanctions.