In Re: Educational Credit Management Corporation

Background

Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC) asked the District Court for permission to take an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the Bankruptcy Court case had reached a final judgment—from the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of ECMC’s motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision issued when the parties agree there is no genuine dispute about the important facts and the law determines the result.

The Bankruptcy Court had ruled on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on January 24, 2020. It held that Kevin Jared Rosenberg was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and discharged his student-loan debt owed to ECMC. Because the parties had sought summary judgment on the same issue, the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling also implicitly denied ECMC’s cross-motion. ECMC appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s grant of Rosenberg’s motion as of right and separately sought permission to appeal the denial of its own motion. Rosenberg opposed that request.

Legal standard

The District Court explained that, in bankruptcy matters, it acts as an appellate court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), permission for an interlocutory appeal generally requires a controlling legal question, substantial grounds for disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal that would materially advance the end of the litigation. Such permission is generally reserved for exceptional circumstances.

The court also explained that when it has jurisdiction to review a grant of summary judgment, it may, in its discretion, review the opposing party’s otherwise unappealable denial of summary judgment when the issues are closely connected and doing so serves judicial economy.

Ruling

The court found that the parties agreed there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the issues raised by their cross-motions were “inextricably bound.” Exercising its discretion to review ECMC’s denial of summary judgment, Judge Seibel granted ECMC’s motion for leave to appeal.

This order granted permission to pursue the interlocutory appeal. It did not decide the underlying dispute over whether Rosenberg’s student-loan debt should remain discharged.