Cluster 699275 (1995)

In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d at 948.

In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d at 948.

See id.; In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d at 951.

In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d at 948; see also Vanston Bondholders Protective Comm. v. Green, 329 U.S. 156, 172 , 67 S.Ct. 237 , 91 L.Ed. 162 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (stating that interest in uniformity is in treating existing obligations of the debtor alike, “regardless of the State in which the bankruptcy court sits”).

See In re Donovan, 871 F.2d at 808 ; In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d at 950.

See In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d 942 , 952 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Res judicata bars the claims of the successors in interest.”). 2.

In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d 942 , 948 (9th Cir. 1995) (“In federal question cases with exclusive jurisdiction in federal court, such as bankruptcy, the court should apply federal, not forum state, choice of law rules.”).

Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 1995).1 This case adds another wrinkle: The dispute here arises out of a clause in a promissory note providing that it should be construed according to Ohio law.

See, e.g., Brown v. Eli Lilly and Co., 654 F.3d 347, 354 (2d Cir. 2011) (dismissing for failure to timely appeal after entry of a Rule 54(b) judgment); In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d 942 , 951 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A Rule 54(b) judgment does not give the prospective appellant an election to appeal at that time or later, when the entire case is over.”). 1 As noted above, the appellate tribunal 1 See also Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U.S. 507, 516 (1950) (“We hold the decr…

Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.1995) (holding federal choice-of-law rules apply and citing cases) with Bianco v. Erkins (In re Gaston & Snow), 243 F.3d 599, 605-06 (2d Cir.2001) (holding forum state choice-of-law rules apply and citing cases)).

Compare In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d 942 , 948 (9th Cir. No. 08-3994 9 1995) (“In federal question cases with exclusive jurisdic- tion in federal court, such as bankruptcy, the court should apply federal, not forum state, choice-of-law rules.”), with In re Gaston & Snow, 243 F.3d 599, 605-06 (2d Cir. 2001) (concluding that a bankruptcy court should apply the choice of law rules of the forum state).

We review for abuse of discretion a district court's denial of a motion to reopen, see Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 950 (9th Cir.1995), and denial of a recusal motion, see Voigt v. Savell, 70 F.3d 1552, 1565 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1826 (1996). 2 We affirm the district court's denial of Eliopulos's motion to reopen for the reasons stated in the district court's order filed on August 6, 1996. 3 We conclude that the distri…

Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 949 (9th Cir.1995) (holding the same with regard to determinations of state law by both district court and bankruptcy court), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 778 , 133 L.Ed.2d 730 (1996).

On appeal, the district court ruled that the bankruptcy court improperly certified its order as final “because it made only a summary determination of ‘no just reason for delay’ without making any findings.” Id. at 951.

Berger v. AXA Network LLC, 469 F.3d 804, 810 (7th Cir. 2006); Liberty Tool & Mfg. v. Vortex Fishing Systems, Inc. (In re Vortex Fishing Systems, Inc.), 277 F.3d 1057, 1069 (9th Cir. 2002); Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsey), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 1995) (“In federal question cases with exclusive jurisdiction in federal court, such as bankruptcy, the court should apply federal, not forum state, choice of law rules.”); Sterba v. PNC Bank (In re Sterba) 5…

Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that “[t]he rule in diversity cases, that federal courts must apply the conflict of laws principles of the forum state, does not apply to federal question cases such as bankruptcy” because ”[i]n federal question cases with exclusive jurisdiction in federal court, such as bankruptcy, the court should apply federal, not forum state, choice of law rules”).

Berger v. AXA Network LLC, 459 F.3d 804, 810 (7th Cir.2006); see also In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d. at 948 (“In federal question cases with exclusive jurisdiction in federal court, such as bankruptcy, the court should apply federal, not forum state, choice of law rules.”).

Berger v. AXA Network LLC, 459 F.3d 804 , 810 7 (7th Cir. 2006); see also In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d. at 948 (“In 8 federal question cases with exclusive jurisdiction in federal 9 court, such as bankruptcy, the court should apply federal, not 10 forum state, choice of law rules.”). 11 We start with the section of the Restatement specifically 12 governing the choice between conflicting statutes of limitations. 13 Historically, that section provided that the statute of 14 limitati…

As the main opinion notes, in Lindsay the federal court of appeals held that “‘[a] Rule 51(b) determination, right or wrong, starts the time for appeal running.’ ” 120 So.3d at 490 (quoting Lindsay, 59 F.3d at 951).

See Lindsay, 59 F.3d at 951 ("Untimely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional defect. . . ."); Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App. 299, ¶ 7 , 13 P.3d 616 ("If an appeal is not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.").

Our research has revealed that only two federal appellate courts have considered this precise issue and that those two courts reached opposite conclusions. 2 See In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d 942, 951 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that “[a] Rule 54(b) certification, right or wrong, starts the time for appeal running”), and Page v. Preisser, 585 F.2d 336, 338 (8th Cir.1978) (holding that “when a district court erroneously certifies a claim as appropriate for immediate appeal under Rule 54…

See, e.g., Edelmann, 861 F.2d at 1294 n. 14 (Edge Act); Corporacion Venezolana, 629 F.2d at 795 (Edge Act); In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d at 948 (bankruptcy); Blackstone Valley, 867 F.Supp. at 77 n. 6 (CERCLA).

Memo. 2021-54 , at *33–34 (citing Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 1995)).

The Ninth Circuit has held that in bankruptcy “federal choice-of-law rules control which state’s law applies.” PNC Bank v. Sterba (In re Sterba), 852 F.3d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 1995)).

Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th 20 Cir. 1995) (applying federal choice of law rules to a bankruptcy case) with Bianco v. Erkins (In re Gaston & Snow), 243 F.3d 599, 605-06 (2d Cir. 2001) (applying forum state choice of law rules to a bankruptcy case)), aff'd, 513 F. App’x 566 (6th Cir. 2013).

“Thus, once a trial court has directed the entry of a final judgment under Rule 54(b), any party seeking relief from that judgment, even on the ground that the judgment is, in fact, interlocutory, must perfect an appeal within thirty days after the entry of judgment.” Id. 7 (citing In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d at 951).

Thus, while Nevada state law applies the rule of 11 decision for Plaintiffs’ claims, the Ninth Circuit holds that “[i]n federal question cases with exclusive 12 jurisdiction in federal court, such as bankruptcy, the court should apply federal, not forum state, 13 choice of law rules.” Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th 14 Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted); see also In re Mayer, BAP No. ID-10-1299-JuMkH, 2011 15 WL 3299053 , at …

Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 1995).

See also Berger v. AXA Network LLC , 459 F.3d 804 , 809-10 (7th Cir. 2006) ("[O]ur task, when the underlying claim is a federal claim, is to fashion a federal choice of law rule.") (emphasis in original); Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay) , 59 F.3d 942 , 948 (9th Cir. 1995) ("In federal question cases with exclusive jurisdiction in federal court, such as bankruptcy, the court should apply federal, not forum state, choice of law rules."); Resolution Trust …

Treasurer & Tax Collector (In re Tracht Gut, LLC), 836 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531 , 114 S.Ct. 1757 , 128 L.Ed.2d 556 (1994)). 4 Thus, under BFP , Defendant is “entitled to judgment as ai matter of law that the foreclosure sale was not a fraudu lent conveyance so long as ‘all the requirements of the State’s foreclosure law have been complied with.’ ” Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 94…

Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.1995).

Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co., 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.1995).

E.g., In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.1995); In re SMEC, Inc., 160 B.R. 86, 89-91 (M.D.Tenn.1993).

Choice of Law “In federal question cases with exclusive jurisdiction in federal court, such as bankruptcy, the court should apply federal, not forum state, choice of law rules.” Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.1995).

Id. at 948 (emphasis added).

Id.; Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.1995), ce rt. denied, 516 U.S. 1074 , 116 S.Ct. 778 , 133 L.Ed.2d 730 (1996).

Delaware Law Governs the LP Agreement under Federal Choice-of-Law Rules “In federal question cases with exclusive jurisdiction in federal court, such as bankruptcy, the court should apply federal, not forum state, choice of law rules.” Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.1995) (citations omitted).

Compare Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 1995) (“In federal question cases with exclusive jurisdiction in federal court, such as bankruptcy, the court should apply federal, not forum state, choice of law rules.”), with Bianco v. Erkins (In re Gaston & Snow), 243 F.3d 599, 605-06 (2d Cir. 2001) (concluding that a bankruptcy -16- court should apply the choice of law rules of the forum state).

Ass’n v. Babbitt, 161 F.3d 740, 744-45 (D.C.Cir.1998); Ebrahimi v. Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162 , 166-67 (11th Cir.1997) (“[W]hen a sound basis for the certification is not obvious and the [trial court] merely repeats the language of the Rule or frames its certification in conclusory terms, we have little choice but to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.”); Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co., 59 F.3d 942, 951 (9th Cir.1995) (“The court making a Rule …

Mandalay Resort Group v. Miller (In re Miller), 292 B.R. 409, 413 (9th Cir. BAP 2003); In re Vortex Fishing Sys., Inc., 277 F.3d 1057 , 1069 (9th Cir.2002); Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.1995).

The second applies a more flexible approach, holding that a bankruptcy court may exercise its "independent judgment” and choose the substantive law of the state which it deems appropriate, usually based on an analysis of the which state has the “most significant contacts” or "most significant relationship.” See, Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 1995).

Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.1995) (citations omitted).

Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co., 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.1995).

Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir.1995); 11 U.S.C. § 101 (54).

Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 952 (9th Cir.1995).

Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 952 (9th Cir.1995).

As the Ninth Circuit held, “Gross inadequacy of price is a ground for setting aside the foreclosure, under BFP , if state law so provides, but it is not a federal standard independent of state law enabling a bankruptcy court to set aside a foreclosure sale.” Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co., 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1074 , 116 S.Ct. 778 , 133 L.Ed.2d 730 (1996).

Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 952 (9th Cir.1995); Restatement *736 (Seoond) of Judgments § 25. 9 The listed exceptions to the General Rule Concerning Splitting, however, import a measure of latitude as to where to draw the pragmatic line.

In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d at 948.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1994); Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1074 , 116 S.Ct. 778 , 133 L.Ed.2d 730 (1996).