Connecticut National Bank v. Germain
503 U.S. 249 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The specific statute granting courts of appeals jurisdiction over final decisions in bankruptcy cases, 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), does not implicitly repeal or limit the general statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1292, which grants courts of appeals discretionary jurisdiction over interlocutory orders of district courts, including those sitting in their bankruptcy appellate capacity.
Facts:
- In 1984, O’Sullivan’s Fuel Oil Co., Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which was later converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation.
- Thomas M. Germain was appointed as the trustee for the O'Sullivan's bankruptcy estate.
- Connecticut National Bank (CNB) was a creditor of O'Sullivan's.
- In 1987, Germain sued CNB in Connecticut state court, alleging various torts and breaches of contract.
- After the case was moved into the bankruptcy proceedings, Germain filed a demand for a jury trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas M. Germain sued Connecticut National Bank (CNB) in a Connecticut state court.
- CNB removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, which then referred it to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
- In the Bankruptcy Court, CNB filed a motion to strike Germain's demand for a jury trial.
- The Bankruptcy Court (the court of first instance) denied CNB's motion.
- CNB appealed to the U.S. District Court, which sat as an intermediate appellate court and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order.
- CNB then appealed the District Court's interlocutory order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Second Circuit's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court of appeals have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 to review an interlocutory order issued by a district court sitting as a court of appeals in bankruptcy?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
Yes, a court of appeals may exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory order from a district court sitting as a bankruptcy appellate court. The plain text of 28 U.S.C. § 1292 grants courts of appeals jurisdiction over interlocutory orders of 'the district courts of the United States' without qualification. The specific bankruptcy appeals statute, 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), which grants jurisdiction over final orders, is silent on interlocutory orders and contains no language limiting or repealing § 1292. Although this creates a statutory overlap with 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (governing final orders generally), statutory redundancies are common and do not create a 'positive repugnancy' requiring one statute to yield to the other. When a statute's words are unambiguous, the judicial inquiry is complete, and the court must presume the legislature meant what it said. Therefore, § 1292 provides a valid basis for jurisdiction.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes, I agree with the judgment. The Court's textual analysis is correct, but it is also prudent to examine legislative history when statutory overlap creates uncertainty. The legislative history of § 158(d) contains no mention of any intent to limit the scope of § 1292. This silence supports the conclusion that Congress did not intend to make such a significant change to the scheme of appellate jurisdiction, reinforcing the majority's conclusion.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes, I agree with the judgment, but for a different reason. The majority's construction does, in fact, render § 158(d) largely superfluous, and courts should strive to avoid interpretations that create such redundancy. However, it is far more probable that Congress inadvertently created this redundancy than it is that Congress intended to silently withdraw long-standing appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory bankruptcy appeals through this roundabout method. The judgment should be reversed on the grounds that an accidental overlap is the more plausible statutory outcome than an unstated, major jurisdictional change.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the jurisdictional statutes for federal courts operate concurrently, resolving a circuit split on the exclusivity of 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). By prioritizing the plain text of 28 U.S.C. § 1292 over arguments of negative implication, the Court affirmed that general grants of jurisdiction are not displaced by more specific statutes unless Congress explicitly says so. This ensures a consistent and predictable pathway for appealing significant, non-final orders in bankruptcy cases, mirroring the process available in other civil litigation. The ruling prevents the foreclosure of appellate review for important preliminary issues in bankruptcy proceedings.
Unlock the full brief for Connecticut National Bank v. Germain