Rejuvi Laboratory, Inc.

Background

Rejuvi Laboratory, Inc. filed for bankruptcy on September 27, 2018. On January 9, 2019, Maria Corso filed a $1,242,240 proof of claim based on a personal-injury judgment entered in Australia. Rejuvi acknowledged that an Australian court had entered a default judgment against it but objected to Corso’s claim, arguing in part that the Australian court lacked personal jurisdiction over Rejuvi.

After a hearing and additional briefing, the bankruptcy judge issued a December 9, 2019 order finding that the Australian court had personal jurisdiction over Rejuvi. The bankruptcy judge found that Rejuvi had purposefully directed activities toward Australia, that Corso’s Australian claim arose from or related to those activities, and that exercising jurisdiction there was reasonable. The bankruptcy judge did not decide whether Corso’s bankruptcy claim should be allowed. The bankruptcy court instead scheduled a status conference to address the remaining issues concerning the claim and Rejuvi’s objection.

Motion for Leave to Appeal

Because the bankruptcy judge’s jurisdiction ruling did not resolve the claim, the district court treated it as an interlocutory order—an order issued before the case is fully resolved. Rejuvi sought permission to appeal that order under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3).

The court explained that permission for an interlocutory appeal is appropriate when the order involves a controlling legal question, there is substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal could materially advance the end of the litigation.

Rejuvi argued that the Australian default judgment could not be recognized by a United States court because Rejuvi’s contacts with Australia were too limited to establish personal jurisdiction. Rejuvi supported its motion with a declaration from its president describing the company’s operations and contacts with Australia.

Ruling

The court held that Rejuvi’s proposed challenge concerned whether the bankruptcy judge correctly applied the law to the particular facts. That type of fact-specific challenge was not the kind of “pure, controlling issue of law” suitable for an interlocutory appeal. Rejuvi therefore had not shown that the order involved a controlling legal question or that there was substantial disagreement about such a question.

The court stated that, even assuming an immediate appeal might help resolve Corso’s claim, Rejuvi had not shown that permission to appeal was appropriate at that time. The motion for leave to appeal was DENIED. The opinion did not decide whether Corso’s bankruptcy claim should ultimately be allowed.