In the Matter of Rockford Products Corp.

Ct. of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider appeal of Dist. Ct. order that remanded matter back to Bankruptcy Ct. for new hearing as to whether defects in roof of building arose after Bankruptcy Ct. had approved debtor’s assumption and sale of lease of said building to tenant, where landlord sought to hold tenant responsible for repair of said leaks, and where tenant had moved Bankruptcy Ct. to reopen bankruptcy proceeding to block landlord from seeking said repair under argument that leaks were present prior to Bankruptcy Ct.’s approval of debtor’s assumption and sale of lease to tenant. Dist. Ct.’s remand order was not “final decision” for purposes of providing Ct. of Appeals with jurisdiction under 28 USC sections 158 or 1291 to consider appeal, since remand order contemplated new findings of fact and new decision by Bankruptcy Ct., which had originally denied tenant’s request to block landlord’s claim for repairs to roof. Ct. of Appeals rejected landlord’s argument that it had jurisdiction to consider appeal under 28 USC section 1292, after finding that remand order did not qualify as modification of injunction.