593 F.2d 93
100 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2675, 85 Lab.Cas.  P 11,160
Clement J. SHEERAN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 77-2869.
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.
Jan. 24, 1979.

1
David E. Williams (argued), of Critchlow, Williams, Ryals & Schuster, Richland, Wash., for plaintiffs-appellants.

2
John Gavin (argued), of Gavin, Robinson, Kendrick, Redman & Mays, Yakima, Wash., for defendant-appellee.

3
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

4
Before GOODWIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON,* District Judge.

JAMESON, District Judge:

5
This is an appeal from an order dismissing an action instituted by Clement J. Sheeran and 1529 other plaintiffs seeking increased pension benefits from General Electric Company.  The plaintiffs asserted, Inter alia, a claim of equitable estoppel.  The district court held that this cause of action is barred by the State of Washington's three year statute of limitations.  We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

6
The appellants are former employees of General Electric at the Hanford Project near Richland, Washington.  They left the employ of General Electric between 1965 and 1967 while the Atomic Energy Commission phased out its contract with General Electric.  At the time his employment was terminated each appellant had sufficient service with General Electric to have acquired vested rights under the General Electric Pension Plan.

7
General Electric, by amendments to its Pension Plan in 1967 and 1971, granted pension increases to certain categories of beneficiaries.  The amendments, however, specifically provided that the increases would not be granted to vestees, the category of beneficiaries which included appellants.

8
On April 26, 1972, the appellants brought suit in the Superior Court in Benton County, Washington, seeking a declaratory judgment that they were entitled to the 1967 and 1971 increases and all future increases in the pensions.  General Electric removed the case to federal court.  Appellants' motion to remand to state court was denied.

9
Appellants, through their complaint and the preliminary pretrial order, dated August 8, 1973, sought recovery under two theories: (1) direct recovery on the contract under the Pension Plan, and (2) indirect recovery on a theory of equitable estoppel.  The court denied appellants' motion for summary judgment based on their contention that the "plain language of the pension plan" entitled them to the pension increases.  Permission was granted appellants to take an interlocutory appeal.

10
This court in an unpublished order entered December 16, 1974, affirmed the district court and concluded that "inasmuch as this presumably disposes of the litigation, we assume that on remand judgment for the defendant will be entered".  The Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari on April 14, 1975, 421 U.S. 913, 95 S.Ct. 1570, 43 L.Ed.2d 779.

11
No further action was taken in the district court until October 1, 1976, when the court, on its own motion, called a status conference to determine if the remaining issue should be dismissed.  Appellants then filed a motion to "deny entry of judgment" on the ground that their second theory of liability had not been determined, i. e., their claim that rights and benefits had been extended to them by reason of certain claimed oral or written representations.  General Electric filed a motion to dismiss on four grounds, including its contention that the claims of estoppel were barred by the statute of limitations.  Following a hearing the remaining claims were dismissed on this ground, the court concluding that they were barred by the State of Washington's three-year statute of limitations.

Issues on Appeal

12
Appellants contend that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction and should have granted appellants' motion to remand to state court, and (2) the court erred in finding their claims of estoppel were barred by Washington's three year statute of limitations.  Appellants did not seek in their interlocutory appeal to have the jurisdictional questions determined.  Appellee contends that appellants therefore have waived their right to raise the issue of jurisdiction, and, in any event, the federal courts have jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction

13
(a) Diversity of Citizenship

14
While all of the 1530 plaintiffs were citizens of a state different from that of the defendant, only three satisfied the $10,000 amount in controversy requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1352.  The district court assumed ancillary jurisdiction of the remaining claims and orally denied plaintiffs' motion to remand.  Before a formal order was entered, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the three $10,000 claimants under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  In an unpublished memorandum and order entered December 4, 1972, the district court held that assuming the dismissal was valid, jurisdiction, once assumed, was retained over the remaining claimants.

15
(b) § 301(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act

16
The Pension Plan was available to 521 plaintiffs under the terms of collective bargaining agreements.1  In its December 4, 1972 order the district court found that the "pension plan became an integral part of the collective bargaining agreements2 and the individual union members (had) a right to sue under § 301(a) (of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a)) for enforcement of the plan".  The court held further that, "The remaining claimants are properly before the court under the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction."3

17
It is well settled that an individual employee may bring suit for breach of a collective bargaining contract in Federal court under § 301(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act.  Smith v. Evening News Ass'n, 371 U.S. 195, 83 S.Ct. 267, 9 L.Ed.2d 246 (1962).  In Evening News the Court noted that, "The rights of individual employees concerning rates of pay and conditions of employment are a major focus of the negotiation and administration of collective bargaining contracts".  371 U.S. at 200, 83 S.Ct. at 270.4  We agree with the district court that pension rights are within the scope of the terms " wages" and "conditions of employment" and therefore are mandatory subjects for collective bargaining.  See Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 170 F.2d 247 (7 Cir. 1948), Cert. denied on pension issue, 336 U.S. 960, 69 S.Ct. 887, 93 L.Ed. 1112 (1949), Aff'd on other issues Sub nom., United States Steelworkers of America v. NLRB, 339 U.S. 382, 70 S.Ct. 674, 94 L.Ed. 925 (1950).  The individual union members had a right to sue General Electric under § 301(a) for enforcement of the pension plan.

18
Appellants argue, however, that in their complaint they asserted no basis for § 301(a) jurisdiction that they are not claiming a violation of any collective bargaining agreement as a basis for their claims.  It is true that as a general rule a plaintiff has the prerogative of determining the theory of his action and, in the absence of fraud, may defeat removal to federal court by avoiding allegations which provide a basis for the assertion of federal jurisdiction.  Jones v. General Tire and Rubber Co., 541 F.2d 660, 664 (7 Cir. 1976).

19
While appellants did not refer to the collective bargaining agreements in their complaint, they did allege a violation of the pension contract which was an integral part of the collective bargaining agreements.  Moreover, as noted Supra (note 1), they agreed in the pretrial order that 521 of the plaintiffs were members of collective bargaining units and that the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act were applicable with respect to the collective bargaining units.

20
A suit for violation of a labor contract is removable and federal law is applicable under § 301(a).  Johnson v. England, 356 F.2d 44 (9 Cir.)  Cert. denied 384 U.S. 961, 86 S.Ct. 1587, 16 L.Ed.2d 673 (1966).5  It is true that Johnson v. England and related cases are not precisely in point since appellants rely upon an alleged violation of the provisions of the pension plan rather than the labor contract itself.  It is undisputed, however, that the rights and benefits sought by 521 union employees were the subject of collective bargaining and that the pension plan was incorporated by reference in the labor contract.  We conclude that the action was properly removed.  In any event, appellants could have brought the action in federal court under § 301(a).  For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we conclude that appellants accordingly are precluded from raising the remand issue on this appeal.

21
(c) Failure to Seek Review of Denial of Motion to Remand.

22
Where a motion to remand is denied, the propriety of removal is reviewable on appeal from the final judgment or by interlocutory appeal if the refusal to remand is certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).6  Here, appellants did not seek an interlocutory appeal when their motion to remand was denied; nor did they seek to raise the jurisdiction issue upon the interlocutory appeal from the order denying their motion for summary judgment, which was determinative of their claims seeking recovery on the contract under the Pension Plan.

23
There is a conflict among the circuits as to whether the removal question a jurisdictional issue should be reviewed "at the first available opportunity".  Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure : Jurisdiction, § 3740 at page 769.  Most of the cases have involved interlocutory appeals of orders granting or denying a preliminary injunction.  They did not involve, as here, a final determination of the primary claim for relief.

24
Appellants argue that until now they have not had the opportunity to request appellate review of the district court's denial of their motion to remand.  We cannot agree.  Appellants' reliance upon La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co. Inc., 506 F.2d 339 (7 Cir. 1974), Cert. denied, 421 U.S. 937, 95 S.Ct. 1666, 44 L.Ed.2d 94 (1975), in support of this contention is misplaced.  In that case the plaintiffs "unsuccessfully attempted to have the removal question certified for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)".  There was an appeal from an order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction, which was reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a).  On that appeal the court did not consider the removal issue.  Following a trial there was an appeal from a final judgment.  On that appeal the court noted that, "in the absence of a certification under § 1292(b)," this "is the first opportunity in this court for review of the order denying the petition to remand".  Accordingly the court rejected "appellee's contention that appellants, by waiting until appeal from final judgment, have waived the right to challenge the denial of the motion to remand".  In noting that its analysis "is not inconsistent" with Grubbs,7 the court stated that the plaintiff "did all it could have done by way of seeking review of the denial of its motion to remand".  506 F.2d at 341-342, n. 1.8

25
Appellants here did not attempt to have the remand issue certified for review, as in Alligator.  Nor did they seek review of the remand issue in their first interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b).  Instead that appeal was based solely on the order denying their motion for summary judgment.  Appellants sought and obtained review of substantive issues resulting in a final determination of their claims under the Pension Plan.  They also sought review in the Supreme Court.  Since the federal court would have had original jurisdiction if the action had been filed in federal court, we conclude that the case had reached the point where the rule set forth in Grubbs, note 7, Supra, is applicable, and the appellants are precluded at this late date from raising the removal issue on this appeal.9

Statute of Limitations

26
We agree with the district court that the estoppel claims are barred by Washington's three year statute of limitations and adopt Judge Lindberg's opinion on this issue as the opinion of this court.  His opinion, which has not been published, follows:

27
The Revised Code of Washington contains two statutes of limitation applicable to contracts:

28
RCW 4.16.040 Actions limited to six years.

Within six years:

29
(2) An action upon a contract in writing, or liability express or implied arising out of a written agreement.

30
RCW 4.16.080 Actions limited to three years.

Within three years:

31
(3) An action upon a contract or liability, express or implied, which is not in writing, and does not arise out of any written instrument.

32
The plaintiffs maintain that because this suit is based fundamentally upon the written plan, the action lies under the six year statute as one "upon a contract in writing based upon implied liability arising out of the written agreement."  Plaintiffs cite two cases, McDonald v. Wockner, 44 Wash.2d 261, 267 P.2d 97 (1954) and Malcom v. Yakima County Consolidated School District, 23 Wash.2d 80, 159 P.2d 394 (1945), in support of the principle that the six year statute of limitations applies.  Both cases are distinguishable from the present action in that they involved enforcement of a written contract after subsequent oral contracts were held invalid.  In each of those cases, the actual recovery allowed was based upon specific enforcement of the written contract.  In the present action, of course, no recovery is possible upon the written contract, as already determined.

33
A thorough discussion of the Washington statutes of limitation is found in Halver v. Welle, 44 Wash.2d 288, 266 P.2d 1053 (1954).  That case involved a written contract to build a house for a specified sum.  Due to a subtraction error, the payment due on the contract was erroneously calculated to be $1000 more than it should have been.  The incorrect sum was paid and, when discovered some five years later, the owners brought suit for recovery of the overpayment; defendants set up the three year statute of limitations as a bar.  The court noted that the contract did not specify for a return of money in case of overpayment and then reviewed the Washington cases discussing the two statutes of limitation and their relationship to written contracts and implied-in-law or quasi-contracts.  The court concluded that where an underlying obligation to pay upon a written contract existed, but where the specific payment sought to be recovered was not contemplated by the terms of that instrument, it could not be said to have been made on a written contract or agreement, and not being so made, the implied liability to repay did not arise out of a written instrument.  Hence the three year statute of limitations applied.

34
While necessary implication is as much a part of an instrument as an express provision is, the implication must, nevertheless, be such as is within the contemplation of the parties when making the contract, or else necessary to carry their intention into effect.  Under such circumstances only will the law imply and enforce the obligation.  Id. at 293, 266 P.2d at 1056.

35
Applying the Halver reasoning to the present action this court has found that a written pension plan existed, but that it contained no provision for plaintiffs to receive the specific pension increases sought.

36
No vestee, therefore, could have had a vested right to any increase granted by one of the amendments unless such increase was granted specifically to vestees by the amendment itself.  Obviously, the amendments now in question did not do so.  Memorandum Decision and Order, dated September 13, 1973 at page 5, lines 9-13.

37
Thus if plaintiffs are to recover, their recovery must be outside of the basic written contract (as recovery of the overpayment was in the Halver case) and would result from an implied-in-law or quasi-contract.  As such, the right of action must be limited by RCW 4.16.080, the three year statute of limitations.  Accord: Martin v. Spokane, 55 Wash.2d 52, 345 P.2d 1113 (1959) (three year statute of limitations applies in a suit to collect sums not paid under a pension plan); State ex rel. Bradford v. King County, 197 Wash. 393, 85 P.2d 670 (1938) (three year statute of limitations applies as a bar to actions for the collection or recovery of pension benefits unlawfully withheld).

38
Having concluded that the three year statute of limitations applies, the question arises as to what, if any, actions are barred.  The defendant argues that the entire cause of action arose on January 1, 1967, when the first pension increase was made.  Thus a suit would have had to be filed by January 1, 1970, in order to recover.  Defendant further maintains that because the 1971 increase was fundamentally the same, and more particularly because under any estoppel theory recovery would be based upon precisely the same representations made prior to the 1967 increase, no new cause of action arose at that time.

39
The Washington courts have held that pensions are, in essence, deferred compensation, Bowen v. Statewide City Emp.  Retirement System, 72 Wash.2d 397, 433 P.2d 150 (1967), a property right which is vested and which may be sued for, Tembruell v. City of Seattle, 64 Wash.2d 503, 392 P.2d 453 (1964).  Furthermore, the person entitled to seek relief for unpaid pension benefits due Under a written contract has a new cause of action at each time the right to the unpaid amount was due a new cause arising each month.  See, E. g., State ex rel. Bradford v. King County, 197 Wash. 393, 85 P.2d 670 (1938).

40
The present action is distinguishable from that in the Bradford case in that no right to pension benefits has accrued under a written contract, as already determined in 1973.  The pension benefits, if recoverable, are so only because of alleged representations made prior to the plaintiffs leaving General Electric in 1965, and culminating in their failure to receive the benefits granted on January 1, 1967.  No "new" representations were made after 1967, up to and including the granting of a second increase in 1971.

41
Without finding that any representations made were sufficient to give rise to a cause under an estoppel theory, this court does find that if the representations gave rise to a cause of action, such cause arose not later than January 1, 1967, and that no new cause of action arose subsequent thereto.  The pension increase of January 1, 1971, was a continuation of the same action of which plaintiffs complained in their action of January 1, 1967.  No new or additional representations are shown.  Unless the latter cause is based upon a separate and distinct set of circumstances, the statute of limitations controlling the first cause also controls the second and serves as a bar for both.  See Stueckle v. Sceva Steel Buildings, 1 Wash.App. 391, 461 P.2d 555 (1969).

42
Plaintiffs seek to subvert the statute of limitations issue by asserting that defendant was and is in the position of a trustee and, as between a trustee and a beneficiary, the statute of limitations does not run so long as the trust relationship subsists.  Arneman v. Arneman, 43 Wash.2d 787, 264 P.2d 256 (1953).  If such a trust relationship exists between defendant and plaintiffs, it exists by reason of the General Electric Pension Plan, under which plaintiffs' rights have already been determined and found not to exist.  Because plaintiffs are not now seeking benefits under the plan, but rather are seeking to have those rights extended to them regardless of the written declarations of the plan (because of the alleged representations made), there can exist no express trust granting to the plaintiffs the benefits and rights which they are seeking.  Plaintiffs must first prove that as to the future benefits and rights claimed the defendant stands in the position of a trustee with the plaintiffs the beneficiaries.  In the case of Martin v. Spokane, 55 Wash.2d 52, 345 P.2d 1113 (1959), wherein a similar trust-relationship argument was raised, the court found that a specific and direct relationship of control must be established between the pension board and the control of the funds under a written contract or based upon statute, before an express trust will be found to exist.  The evidence presented here by plaintiffs is simply not sufficient to find that such a trust relationship exists.

43
In summary, the court finds that the plaintiffs' cause of action for benefits arose at the time of the granting of the increased pension benefits by the General Electric Board of Directors on January 1, 1967, which benefits were not extended to plaintiffs.  No new cause of action arose on January 1, 1971.  The cause of action under which plaintiffs now proceed, equitable estoppel, is based upon representations outside of the written contract.  To the extent their cause of action is based upon the written pension plan, their rights have been determined by this court; to the extent their rights are based upon representations outside the contract, their cause of action is barred by the three year statute of limitations.

44
AFFIRMED.

*
 The Honorable William J. Jameson, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation

1
 In a pretrial order the parties agreed:
That approximately 521 of the named plaintiffs were members of collective bargaining units at the time they were employed by defendant and that the business of defendant in which said plaintiffs and defendants were engaged affected interstate commerce and That the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act were and are applicable with respect to the collective bargaining units.  (emphasis added)

2
 The district court noted that the "Pension Plan was considered and extensively modified in the 1963 Settlement Agreement between General Electric and the Hanford Guards Union Local 21.  The 1964 Settlement Agreement between General Electric and the Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council made the plan available to the union members and the plan was incorporated by reference into the agreement."

3
 The court found that "1500 claims identical as to questions of law and fact strongly compelled consolidation of all claims before one tribunal for the sake of judicial economy"

4
 See also Chemical Workers v. Pittsburg Glass, 404 U.S. 157, 92 S.Ct. 383, 30 L.Ed.2d 341 (1971), where the Court noted that even though a union does not bargain for retirees, the retirees are not without protection under contract principles and that "(a retiree) would have a federal remedy under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act for breach of contract if his benefits were unilaterally changed".  404 U.S. at 181, n. 20, 92 S.Ct. at 399

5
 Johnson v. England was an action by union representatives for arbitration under a labor contract requiring an employer to deposit money in a pension fund

6
 See E. g., Swanson v. Liberty National Insurance Co., 353 F.2d 12 (9 Cir. 1965); Climax Chemical Co. v. C. F. Braun S. Co., 370 F.2d 616 (10 Cir. 1966), Cert. denied, 386 U.S. 981, 87 S.Ct. 1287, 18 L.Ed.2d 231 (1967)

7
 Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp., 405 U.S. 699, 92 S.Ct. 1344, 31 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972).  In that case the Court held that where after removal a case is tried on the merits without objection, the issue on appeal is not whether the case was properly removed, but whether the district court would have had original jurisdiction if the case had been filed in that court

8
 Three justices dissented from the order denying certiorari in Alligator, concluding that Grubbs, supra, note 7, should be extended to require that the removal issue be raised on an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction.  There is, of course, more reason to apply Grubbs and require that the remand issue be raised in a case, such as this one, where the order was determinative of the primary claims for relief

9
 Having reached this conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider the alternative ground of jurisdiction diversity of citizenship or the effect of the voluntary dismissal by three plaintiffs who met the $10,000 jurisdictional requirement


594 F.Supp.2d 862 (2009)
Kimberly LOPEZ, as guardian, next friend and parent of Gilberto Lopez, a minor
v.
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY; and Genesis Learning Centers
United States of America, Intervening Plaintiff.
No. 3-07-0799.
United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division.
January 15, 2009.
*863 John R. Clemmons, Malcolm L. McCune, William Gary Blackburn, Blackburn & McCune, PLLC, Nashville, TN, for Kimberly Lopez.
Jonathan Fischbach, Department of Justice, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, Mark H. Wildasin, Office of the United States Attorney, Nashville, TN, for Intervenor Plaintiffs.
Francis Howard Young, James W.J. Farrar, Metropolitan Legal Department, Jason M. Bergeron, R. Dale Bay, Lewis, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., Keith W. Blair, Thomas F. Mink, II, Taylor, Pigue, Marchetti & Mink, PLLC, Benjamin M. Rose, James K. Simms, IV, Jay N. Chamness, Cornelius & Collins, LLP, Nashville, TN, for Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County; and Genesis Learning Centers.

ORDER
JULIET GRIFFIN, United States Magistrate Judge.
As provided herein, the motion of defendant Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee ("Metro") to quash subpoena (Docket Entry No. 145) is DENIED.
Defendant Metro seeks to quash a subpoena served by the intervening plaintiff United States of America ("United States").[1] The United States filed a response (Docket Entry No. 153), to which defendant Metro filed a reply (Docket Entry No. 155), and the United States filed a sur-reply (Docket Entry No. 157).[2]
In the subpoena the United States seeks Metro Police Department documents relating to any complaints and/or investigations of alleged sexual misconduct, harassment or assault occurring on school buses transporting students to public or contract schools in the Metro public school system from January 1, 2005, to present, and all *864 documents in the custody of the Metropolitan Nashville Public School System ("MNPS") received by the MNPS relating to any complaint from January 1, 2003, to present, alleging sexual misconduct, harassment or assault on such school buses. See Docket Entry Nos. 145-1, at 1-3.
Defendant Metro emphasizes that, in its motion to intervene (Docket Entry No. 109), the United States represented that it did not intend to "issue substantial discovery requests in light of the comprehensive factual record already developed," and that any request for additional discovery would be "minimal" in light of the December 5, 2008, deadline for completion of fact discovery.[3] Defendant Metro also points out that the United States had sought to obtain the same documents on three prior occasions and that defendant Metro had consistently advised that the documents could not be released because of the confidentiality provisions of Tennessee law relating to records of child sexual abuse.
Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 37-1-601 et seq. provides a "comprehensive approach for the detection, intervention, prevention and treatment of child sexual abuse," Tenn. Code Ann. 37-1-601(a).[4] Tenn.Code Ann. § 37-1-612, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) In order to protect the right of the child and the child's parents or other persons responsible for the child's welfare, all records concerning reports of child sexual abuse, including files, reports, records, communications and working papers related to investigations or providing services ... shall be confidential and exempt from other provisions of law, and shall not be disclosed, except as specifically authorized [by the statute to child care agencies and for purposes of mandatory child abuse reporting].
(b) Except as otherwise provided ..., it is unlawful for any person, except for purposes directly connected with administration of this part [of the statute], to disclose, receive, make use of, authorize or knowingly permit, participate in, or acquiesce to the use of any list or name, or any information concerning a report or investigation of a report of harm under this part [of the statute], directly or indirectly derived from the records, papers, files or communications of the department or other entities authorized by law to assist the department when such information was acquired in the course of the performance of official duties ...
(c) In addition to such other purposes as may be directly connected with the administration of this part [of the statute], access to such records, excluding the name of the reporter, which shall be released only as provided in subsection (g),[5] shall be granted to other following persons, officials, or agencies for the following purposes:

*865 (1) A law enforcement agency investigating a report of a known or suspected child sexual abuse; ....
In further response to a previous request from the United States, counsel for defendant Metro wrote that "[b]ecause I am not aware of a statutory exception to T.C.A. § 37-1-612 that would allow the Metropolitan Government to legally release the requested records to you, I would recommend that you seek a court order to obtain the records," since "in the absence of a court order or applicable statutory exception to T.C.A. § 37-1-612, [Metro is] simply unable to legally release the specific records ..." Docket Entry Nos. 145-1, at 5; and 145-7 at 2.
In response to Metro's motion, the United States argues that the exception contained in Tenn.Code Ann. § 37-1-612(c)(1), cited above, applies to the United States Department of Justice in its capacity as a law enforcement agency charged with enforcing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., and that the decision in Farley v. Farley, 952 F.Supp. 1232 (M.D.Tenn.1997) (Wiseman, J.), compels the production of the requested documents. The United States explains that it is entitled to the information sought to "determine the extent to which Metro's policies and practices fostered an environment conducive to sexual harassment on special needs school buses in contravention of Title IX," Docket Entry No. 153, at 3, and, relying upon a news report that Metro police said there were "more victims" of sexual assault on schools buses and that school officials could have prevented the assaults, see Docket Entry No. 145-6, at 3, the United States "suspect[s] other episodes of sexual harassment among students with disabilities on special needs buses." Docket Entry No. 153, at 3.[6]
In reply, defendant Metro argues that the United States is not a "law enforcement agency" under Tenn.Code Ann. § 37-1-612(c)(1), and that Farley v. Farley does not compel disclosure of the requested documents. Although not raised in the original motion to quash, in its reply, defendant Metro also contends that the scope of the documents requested by the United States is unrelated to the relief of "institutional change" sought by the United States, particularly since defendant Metro has already implemented the institutional change of hiring bus monitors for all of its special education buses and the request by the United States for all Police Department documents could include documents generated in the course of ongoing, active criminal prosecutions that would be exempt under the Tennessee Public Records Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 10-7-503.
In its sur-reply, the United States reiterates its position that the law enforcement agency exception applies, and further argues that the Tennessee Public Records Act is inapplicable.
Analysis of the question of whether the United States is entitled to the documents it seeks must be made, to a significant extent, in a vacuum since the parties have not cited any cases, nor has the Court found any cases, that are directly on point. It appears that there simply are no casesor none that the Court could find that address the issue of whether and/or *866 the extent to which the United States is entitled to documents related to sexual assaults of school children in a Title IX action when a state statute would otherwise protect the disclosure of such information.[7]

1. Law Enforcement Exception to State Confidentiality Statute
Defendant Metro contends that, although the Department of Justice may be a law enforcement agency in other contexts, the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice is not a law enforcement agency under Tenn.Code Ann. § 37-1-612(c)(1), which "contemplates an agency actively investigating allegations of violations of criminal law," specifically child sexual abuse. Docket Entry No. 155, at 1. To bolster its position, defendant Metro also cites to Tenn.Code Ann. § 37-1-605(a)(7), which requires that "[l]aw enforcement officer[s]" report knowledge or suspicion of sexual abuse, arguing that the reference to a "law enforcement officer" means "an officer charged with the enforcement of criminal laws ...." Id. at 1-2. The Court notes, however, that the listing of exemptions from non-disclosure in section 37-1-612(c) includes persons "engaged in bona fide research or audit purposes," Tenn.Code Ann. § 37-1-612(c)(4), so it is not possible to argue that the exceptions from disclosure are limited only to those involved in the reporting, investigation, and administration of specific instances of child sexual abuse or those with authority to enforce criminal laws.
Other than citing in a footnote a reference to Farley, id. at 2 n. 1, defendant Metro has provided no cases to support its position. The citation to Judge Wiseman's observation that legislative authorization to release records relating to child abuse is limited to "judicial and law enforcement communities" was in the context of consideration of whether the State of Tennessee waived its right to assert confidentiality of the plaintiff's file, see Farley, 952 F.Supp. at 1241, and thus is not relevant to the issue at hand.
The United States relies on the case of United States v. The Bertie County Bd. of Educ., 319 F.Supp.2d 669 (E.D.N.C.2004), which interpreted the "law enforcement" exception to non-disclosure under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act ("FERPA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, to apply to the United States in a desegregation action to enforce section 407 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-6(a)-(b). The Eastern District of North Carolina relied on Black's Law Dictionary[8] and Court of Appeals decisions holding that the "law enforcement" exemption of the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") applies to civil and criminal enforcement proceedings. See Pope v. United States, 599 F.2d 1383, 1386 (5th Cir. 1979); Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. I.T.O. Corp. of Baltimore, 508 F.2d 945, 949 (4th Cir.1974); Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067, 1079 n. 45 (D.C.Cir.1971).
*867 In its motion to intervene, the United States described its legal interest in the subject of this case in "ensuring that recipients of federal funds, such as Metro, do not discriminate on the basis of the [sic] sex in violation of Title IX.... [and] in ensuring that federal funds are not disbursed to entities that fail to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws." Docket Entry No. 110, at 4. In its response in opposition to the motion of the United States to intervene, defendant Metro acknowledged that the "United States possesses independent investigatory power to examine and protect its interests in the enforcement of Title IX." Docket Entry No. 115, at 2 (emphasis added).
It would be anomalous to charge the United States with enforcement of Title IX but, at the same time, preclude it from obtaining information relevant to its enforcement responsibilities. In fact, federal regulations contemplate that the United States may access compliance information and that "[a]sserted considerations of privacy or confidentiality may not operate to bar the Department [of Education] from evaluating or seeking to enforce compliance..." 34 C.F.R. § 100.6 (made applicable to Title IX by 34 C.F.R. § 106.71).
Based on the case law interpreting "law enforcement" in the context of Freedom of Information Act cases, along with the absence of an explicit limitation in Tenn.Code Ann. § 37-1-612(c)(7) to law enforcement officers involved solely with criminal proceedings, and the acknowledged role of the United States in the enforcement of Title IX, the Court finds that the United States qualifies for the law enforcement exception of section 37-1-612(c)(7).

2. Applicability of Farley v. Farley

In Farley, the plaintiff asserted conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the state, state officials, and her ex-husband arising from the removal of her children from her custody by what is now the Tennessee Department of Children's Services ("DCS").[9] The issue in Farley was whether the plaintiff or her counsel should be permitted to disclose to fact witnesses the contents of her DCS record that had been produced to the plaintiff pursuant to a protective order precluding such disclosure. Without discussion, the Court upheld the portion of the Magistrate Judge's order that precluded disclosure of other DCS investigative files. On the other hand, after comprehensive analysis, the Court modified the protective order to allow the plaintiff to reveal the contents of her own DCS file when engaging in fact witness interviews, with limitations on further disclosure and use of such information.
While recognizing that, in federal civil rights actions it would be anomalous to allow state law privileges, such as those contained in Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 37-1-409 and 37-1-612, to hamper enforcement of those claims, the Court adopted a deferential standard in analyzing and balancing the competing state and federal objectives "to ensure vindication of the paramount federal interest with as minimal an intrusion on the state interests as is consistent with [a] federal claim." 952 F.Supp. at 1237 (citing Van Emrik v. Chemung County Dept. of Social Servs., 121 F.R.D. 22, 25 (W.D.N.Y.1988)). In conclusion, the Court commented that disputes "pitting the invocation of T.C.A. §§ 37-1-409 and 37-1-612 against a civil rights plaintiff's need for disclosure" is likely to recur in the Tennessee *868 federal district courts and explained that its comprehensive analysis was "intended to forestall at least some degree of duplication of effort and exhaustion of judicial resources" in addressing such further disputes. 952 F.Supp. at 1243.
The instant dispute is indeed the "pitting" of the same Tennessee statutes against a civil rights plaintiff's need for disclosure. However, this case may present an even stronger case for disclosure of information otherwise protected because the requesting party is not an individual plaintiff, seeking to vindicate her rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as was the plaintiff in Farley, but rather the United States Department of Justice, seeking to enforce Title IX.
Defendant Metro cites a recent decision from the Southern District of New York, in which the Court also balanced the competing interests between the state's confidentiality statute and the federal civil rights plaintiff. DeLeon v. Putnam Valley Bd. of Educ., 228 F.R.D. 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). In that case, however, the issue was whether the name of the reporter of child abuse was subject to discovery. As provided infra, the defendant may redact the name of any reporter, along with other personal, identifying information relating to other persons.
Defendant Metro also cites an unpublished Title IX case from the Southern District of Ohio, in which the Court granted the motion of the County Children Services to quash a subpoena seeking documents relating to two other children who were allegedly sexually abused by the same child who allegedly sexually abused the plaintiff and other case files involving allegations of abuse or misconduct of the alleged perpetrator. Hart v. Paint Valley Local Sch. Dist., 2001 WL 1681140 (S.D.Ohio Oct. 17, 2001). The Southern District of Ohio did recognize that the Ohio confidentiality statutes (whose wording is not identical to the Tennessee statutes at issue) was not absolute, citing, inter alia, Farley, but granted the motion to quash, reasoning that, although the information is "arguably relevant to the claims," the information may not be admissible, that it was not clear why the records would "shed light" on what the defendant school district knew since there was "no reason to believe that the information ... was ever disclosed to the defendant school district," and the plaintiffs had not shown why they could not obtain the substantial equivalent of the records by other means. In this case, defendant Metro has not suggested that the United States could obtain the requested documents by other means and it appears that defendant Metro was indeed aware of other allegations of sexual abuse. Similarly, defendant Metro has not suggested that the information at issue would not be admissible at trial.
The Court finds that the reasoning in Farley should apply in this case. However, just as in Farley, it is appropriate to consider minimalizing the intrusion on the state interests provided in Tenn.Code Ann. § 37-1-602.

3. Ongoing Criminal Investigations
Defendant Metro also argues that the scope of the request by the United States for all documents relating to complaints or investigations of allegations of sexual misconduct is so broad that it could include documents created by the Police Department in the course of ongoing, active criminal prosecutions, which would be exempt from disclosure under the Tennessee Public Records Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 10-7-503, pursuant to Rule 16(a)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, based on the authority of Schneider v. City of Jackson, 226 S.W.3d 332, 345 (Tenn.2007). As the United States argues, even if the *869 Public Records Act were applicable, the same Farley analysis would apply.
Significantly, defendant Metro does not affirmatively represent that there is any ongoing, active criminal prosecution. The Court is aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against Kolby Harris, the alleged perpetrator of the sexual abuse suffered by the plaintiff in this case. It does not appear to the Court, however, that it is documents related to the Kolby Harris prosecution that the United States seeks. On March 4, 2008, counsel for the United States wrote to Metro that the news media had reported that the Metro Police Department was investigating "similar claims by other disabled students[10] who allege inappropriate sexual conduct on special education school buses." Docket Entry No. 145-4. In counsel's letter of September 17, 2008, the United States again referred to a similar quote from the media, attributed to the Metro police spokesperson. Docket Entry No. 145-6.

4. Other Objections
Defendant Metro suggests that the documents requested by the United States are something more than the "minimal" discovery the United States assured the Court it would seek. The United States did not address this argument, and defendant Metro did not elaborate on any burden of production or on whether the document production would be extensive. The Court finds that the discovery sought by the United States is not substantial and, without more information from defendant Metro, can be produced with minimal effort.
In its reply, defendant Metro also maintained that the scope of the document request was unrelated to the relief sought by the United States since the "institutional change" of hiring bus monitors has already occurred. Although the United States did not address this argument in its sur-reply, the Court finds that the voluntary act by defendant Metro might not preclude the United States from seeking injunctive relief and that using bus monitors may not comprise the entirety of the injunctive relief sought by the United States.

5. Conclusion
Defendant Metro shall respond to the subpoena served by the United States and shall produce responsive documents, subject to the following conditions:
(a) Defendant Metro shall not be required to produce documents related to the plaintiff in this case or to the plaintiff in Staehling v. Metro.
(b) Defendant Metro may redact the names of any reporter of sexual abuse, the victim of alleged sexual abuse and any other personal, identifying information of the reporters, victims and other persons from any documents produced to the United States.
(c) Such documents shall be subject to the protective order entered March 7, 2008 (Docket Entry No. 69), except that paragraph (4) of that order shall not apply since the documents will already contain redactions.
The Court will consider any further protective order relating to the documents at issue and any further appropriate restrictions related to non-dissemination or disclosure, upon motion by defendant Metro.
If the Court has erroneously assumed that the United States seeks information about complaints of sexual abuse on special *870 education buses other than the complaints made by the plaintiff in this case and in the Staehling case, the Court will consider expanding the disclosure by defendant Metro upon motion by the United States if the United States is able to show why that information is necessary and that it cannot be obtained from other sources (or has not already been obtained).
Any party desiring to appeal this order of the Magistrate Judge may do so by filing a motion for review no later than ten (10) days from the date of service of this order. The motion for review must be accompanied by a brief or other pertinent documents to apprise the District Judge of the basis for the appeal. See Rule 9(a)(1) of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judge Proceedings.
It is so ORDERED.
NOTES
[1]  Like defendant Metro, the Court is perplexed about why the United States served a subpoena duces tecum upon Metro rather than serving Metro with a request for production of documents pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The United States suggests that it served a subpoena because the United States had previously sought the information but that Metro had recommended that the United States seek a court order. See Docket Entry No. 153, at 2. Of course, the United States could have sought a court order by filing a motion to compel after Metro objected to requests for production of documents. Regardless, however, the Court will consider the document requests inasmuch as nothing in Rule 45 appears to expressly prohibit serving a subpoena duces tecum on a party.
[2]  The parties did not file a joint written statement of the matters in dispute, as required by Local Rule 37.01(a). In addition, although it attached prior correspondence between counsel, Metro did not file a certification that counsel for the parties had conferred in good faith in an attempt to resolve the issue, as required by Local Rule 37.01(b)(3). Even though Local Rule 37.01(b)(3) provides that a motion to quash a subpoena will not be considered unless the moving party has filed such a certification, the Court has considered the motion inasmuch as the parties have engaged in correspondence about at least some of the issues raised. However, such conferring and particularly the Rule 37.01(a) statement might have refined the issues in dispute, particularly the issues first raised by defendant Metro in its reply.
[3]  The December 5, 2008, deadline for completion of fact discovery was extended to January 15, 2009, by order entered December 9, 2008 (Docket Entry No. 154), to permit defendant Genesis the opportunity to obtain police and medical records relating to the plaintiff.
[4]  Tenn Code Ann. § 37-1-601(b) also provides that the purpose of the statute is the same as that provided in Tenn.Code Ann. § 37-1-402, addressing mandatory child abuse reports, specifically to "protect children whose physical or mental health and welfare are adversely affected by brutality, abuse or neglect" so that "the protective services of the state shall be brought to bear on the situation to prevent further abuses, to safeguard and enhance the welfare of children, and to preserve family life."
[5]  Section 37-1-612(g) addresses release of the name of any person reporting child sexual abuse to DCS employees, other specific persons, and the abuse registry.
[6]  The news report also quoted the Metro police spokesman as reporting that, in addition to the allegations in the instant case and the related case of Staehling v. Metropolitan Government, No. 3-07-0797, the Police Department "has two active investigations involving alleged inappropriate sexual contact of special education students by other students on special education buses," and that those incidents would not have occurred "if there had been adults" on the buses. Docket Entry Nos. 145-6, at 3-4.
[7]  Defendant Metro does cite Hart v. Paint Valley Local Sch. Dist., 2001 WL 1681140 (S.D.Ohio Oct. 17, 2001), a Title IX case filed by an individual plaintiff, in which the United States was not involved. See discussion infra at 10-11.
[8]  "Law Enforcement" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "[t]he detection and punishment of violations of the law.... [and] is not limited to enforcement of criminal laws," and refers to the exemption in the Freedom of Information Act for law enforcement purposes that includes enforcement of non-criminal laws. Black's Law Dictionary 901 (8th ed. 2004). A "law-enforcement officer" is defined as "[a] person whose duty is to enforce the laws and preserve the peace." Id.
[9]  The United States refers to Metro as a party and that the plaintiff sought records from Metro in Farley. However, Metro was not a party nor did the plaintiff request any documents from Metro. Metro simply was not involved in Farley.
[10]  The Court assumes that the allusions to "similar claims" and "other disabled students" referred to claims by special education students other than the plaintiff in this case and in the Staehling case.


484 F.3d 1116
In re Thurman BROWN,Thurman Brown, Appellant,v.Wilshire Credit Corporation, Appellee.
No. 05-15605.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2007*.
April 26, 2007.

Ronald J. Ellett, Jay S. Volquardsen; Ellett Law Offices, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for debtor Thurman Brown and appellant.
Ellett Law Offices, P.C. David Wm. Engelman, William H. Anger; Engelman Berger, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Appellee Wilshire Credit Corporation.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-01439-SRB, Adv.No. 02-1381.
Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, PAMELA ANN RYMER and BARRY G. SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge SILVERMAN; Concurrence by Judge RYMER.
SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:

1
A bankruptcy judge ruled in open court on cross-motions for summary judgment regarding debtor Thurman Brown's claim that Wilshire Credit Corporation violated the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay. Later that day, the judge signed a minute entry stating that Wilshire's motion for summary judgment was granted and that Brown's was denied, and taking under advisement a related motion for sanctions. Brown filed his appeal nearly three months later when the court entered judgment awarding sanctions against his counsel. We hold today that a minute entry that merely grants summary judgment — without more — does not become a final, appealable judgment just because it has been signed by the judge. The minute entry in this case was the memorialization of a ruling, not a judgment, and thus did not trigger the 10-day window in which Brown was required to appeal. Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing Brown's appeal as untimely.

BACKGROUND

2
Because this opinion is limited to the timeliness of Brown's appeal to the district court,1 we will just briefly summarize the facts. Brown obtained a loan from LaSalle National Bank secured by a deed of trust. Wilshire Credit Corporation serviced the loan for the bank. After Brown defaulted, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, the foreclosure trustee on the deed of trust, scheduled a non-judicial foreclosure sale. The sale took place a few hours after Brown had filed for bankruptcy protection. Complications ensued. Ultimately, Brown brought an adversary proceeding against Wilshire alleging that Wilshire violated the automatic stay.

3
Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, and argument on the motions was held on April 22, 2004. Ruling from the bench at the conclusion of the argument, the bankruptcy judge granted Wilshire's motion for summary judgment and gave his reasons. At the end of the bankruptcy judge's remarks, the following exchange occurred:

4
COURT: Those are my findings of fact and conclusions of law. Do you wish to lodge a — or propose formal findings and conclusions,2 or do you want me to simply sign the minute entry?

5
WILSHIRE'S COUNSEL: If you'll sign the minute entry, that will suffice, Your Honor.

6
COURT: I'll sign the minute entry. That will be the order.

7
Later that day, the court issued a document labeled "MINUTE ENTRY" that read as follows:

Appearances:

JAY S. VOLQUARDSEN, ATTORNEY
FOR THURMAN BROWN
RICK SHERMAN ATTORNEY FOR WILSHIRE

Proceedings:

8
Mr. Volquardsen reviewed the history of this matter and urged the Court to grant the debtor's motion for summary judgment.

9
COURT: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WERE STATED ON THE RECORD. IT IS ORDERED DENYING THE DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING WILSHIRE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

10
     /s/ Randolph J. Haines
     RANDOLPH J. HAINES

U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

11
Mr. Sherman requested the Court rule on his 9011 motion advising he believes it is fully briefed.

12
COURT: THE COURT WILL REVIEW THE DOCKET TO DETERMINE IF THE MOTION HAS BEEN FULLY BRIEFED. IT IS ORDERED TAKING THE MOTION UNDER ADVISEMENT UNLESS BY NEXT TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2004 EITHER PARTY FILES A REQUEST FOR HEARING.

13
cc: Pat

Jim

14
Six days later, in an April 28, 2004 "Memorandum Decision" — which also bears the judge's signature — the bankruptcy court decided in principle to sanction Brown's lawyer, Ronald Ellett, because, the bankruptcy judge said, he "never advanced a single fact demonstrating that Wilshire took an active step in violation of the automatic stay after having knowledge of the existence of the bankruptcy," and because his papers were void of any law or non-frivolous argument for the extension of existing law that "imputed knowledge is a sufficient basis to find a willful stay violation." The amount of the sanction remained to be determined.

15
In a ruling dated June 30, 2004, the bankruptcy court largely denied Brown's motion for reconsideration. As to sanctions, the bankruptcy court awarded $18,791.63, and directed Wilshire's counsel to lodge a form of judgment.

16
On July 6, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered a formal "Judgment Awarding Rule 11 Sanctions Against Ellett Law Offices, P.C." In contrast to the April 22 minute entry, this document bore the court seal and language apparently rubber-stamped on the top of the first page reading: "IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED and DECREED this is SO ORDERED. The party obtaining this order is responsible for noticing it pursuant to Local Rule 9022-1." Immediately below the stamped language was the date, followed by the judge's signature. In the body of the document, it says, "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting judgment in favor of defendant Wilshire Credit Corporation and against plaintiff/debtor's attorney ... in the amount of $18,791.63, with post-judgment interest.... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED expressly directing the entry of this judgment as the Court finds that there is no just reason for delay."

17
Accompanying that document was a separate document captioned, "Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order," in which the court clerk gave notice that judgment had been entered on the court docket, and certified that copies of the judgment had been mailed to the parties.

18
On July 15, 2004, nine days after entry of the judgment awarding sanctions, Brown appealed the bankruptcy court's summary judgment order. Ellett appealed the judgment awarding sanctions against his firm on July 7, 2004.

19
The district court dismissed Brown's appeal of the order granting summary judgment against him because his appeal was not filed within ten days of April 22, 2004, the day the bankruptcy court entered its minute order granting Wilshire's motion for summary judgment. See Bankr.R. Proc. 8002(a) ("The notice of appeal shall be filed with the clerk within 10 days of the date of the entry of the judgment, order, or decree appealed from."). That minute entry, the district court reasoned, was a "final order" in so much as it evidenced the bankruptcy court's intent that the summary judgment ruling "end the controversy regarding the alleged violation of the automatic stay." "Most importantly," the district court went on to say, "Judge Haines signed the minute entry." The district court then affirmed the award of sanctions against Ellett and his law firm, concluding that he "offer[ed] no plausible factual or legal basis for holding Wilshire liable for the acts or failures to act of the trustee, Fidelity."

ANALYSIS

20
We must determine whether the bankruptcy court's April 22, 2004 minute entry constitutes a final, appealable order. If it does, Brown's appeal to the district court was untimely, depriving us of jurisdiction to hear his appeal. In re Slimick, 928 F.2d 304, 306-09 (9th Cir.1990). If the minute entry is not a final, appealable order, Brown's appeal was not untimely, and we may review the merits of the bankruptcy court's summary judgment ruling. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the minute entry was not a final, appealable order.

21
A disposition is final if it contains "`a complete act of adjudication,' that is, a full adjudication of the issues at bar, and clearly evidences the judge's intention that it be the court's final act in the matter." Id. at 307 (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443, 448 (9th Cir.2000) ("A final decision is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute judgment." (internal quotations omitted)). "Evidence of intent consists of the Order's content and the judge's and parties [sic] conduct." In re Slimick, 928 F.2d at 308.3

22
On its face, the April 22, 2004 minute entry, although signed, is simply the memorialization of the proceedings of that day. A comparison of the April 22 minute entry with the July 6, 2004 judgment awarding sanctions illustrates this point. The July 6, 2004 judgment came affixed with the court seal and contained unequivocal judgment-granting language. In contrast, the minute entry of April 22 merely recites that one motion was "ordered" granted and another one denied. That phrase, "IT IS ORDERED," often precedes utterances that are not final judgments at all, e.g., "IT IS ORDERED continuing the case" and "IT IS ORDERED setting the following briefing schedule." More important than "IT IS ORDERED" is what has been ordered. Tellingly, the April 22, 2004 minute entry did not order that "judgment be entered" in favor of Wilshire or that Brown's case be "dismissed with prejudice." These are conspicuous omissions.

23
Indeed, with respect to finality, we have previously drawn a distinction between (1) an order that merely provides that "[t]he motion of the Defendant for summary judgment ... is now decided as follows: The said motion is hereby granted," and (2) a later judgment that concluded, "It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff take nothing by its actions against the defendant." Monarch Brewing Co. v. George J. Meyer Mfg. Co., 130 F.2d 582, 583 (9th Cir.1942) ("We are satisfied that the [earlier order] was not intended as the rendition of a judgment in favor of the defendant."); see also Am. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Sec'y of Hous. & Urban Dev., 946 F.2d 1286, 1289 (7th Cir.1991) (minute entry is final order where it provided that "Judgment is entered as follows" and then outlined the relief ordered by the court); In re Cahn, 188 B.R. 627, 630 (9th Cir. BAP 1995) (order granting summary judgment and dismissing adversary proceeding was final and appealable).

24
While we recognize that "no formal words of judgment are necessary to convey finality," In re Slimick, 928 F.2d at 308, there must be some dispositive language sufficient to put the losing party on notice that his entire action — and not just a particular motion or proceeding within the action — is over and that his next step is to appeal. The minute entry at issue here gives exactly the opposite sort of notice. It specifically recites that the bankruptcy judge intends to rule in the near future on Wilshire's then-pending motion for sanctions. See Nat'l Distrib. Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 432, 434 (9th Cir.1997) ("The rulings on their face demonstrate that the court contemplated further action, and we will not venture to guess whether the court subjectively intended otherwise.").

25
We follow a "pragmatic approach" to finality in bankruptcy — "a complete act of adjudication need not end the entire case, but need only end any of the interim disputes from which an appeal would lie." In re Slimick, 928 F.2d at 307 n. 1.4 But here, the two motions clearly were intertwined. The motion for sanctions simply cannot be characterized as involving "discrete issue[s]" apart from the summary judgment motion. In re Lazar, 237 F.3d 967, 985 (9th Cir.2001) ("[B]ankruptcy court order is final, and thus appealable, where it (1) resolves and seriously affects substantive rights and (2) finally determines discrete issue to which it is addressed." (internal quotations omitted)).

26
We have held that a minute entry triggered the time period in which to appeal, but those cases involved post-judgment motions for relief, which do not raise the same concerns that the losing party lacks notice that he can exercise his right to appeal. In Beaudry Motor Co. v. Abko Props., Inc., 780 F.2d 751 (9th Cir.1986), for example, the district court denied a motion for a new trial and leave to amend, both of which followed its grant of summary judgment and entry of judgment. Unlike Brown here, then, the plaintiff in Beaudry Motor already knew its case was dead — judgment already had been handed down. Its post-judgment motions were an effort to resurrect the case, but for purposes of appealability, they merely stayed the time for appeal, which had otherwise begun to run. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(v). Thus, all that mattered was when the district court entered its order disposing of the post-judgment motions, because a notice of appeal must then be filed within thirty days, measured from the entry of the order. See Beaudry Motor, 780 F.2d at 753-54 (citing Fed. R.App. 4(a)(4)(B)).

27
The same is true of Ingram v. ACandS, Inc., 977 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir.1992). That case went to trial, and judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs on the jury's findings. See id. at 1336 ("The [district] court determined that Fibreboard was jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the judgment...."). The defendants' right to pursue motions for a new trial suspended the time in which to appeal, but unless and until they were granted, the fact remained that they had lost and the case was over. They did not need any further notice from the district court on that issue.

28
We reaffirm the rule that a minute entry ordering the denial of a motion for new trial, after a final judgment has already been entered, starts the appeal clock. But that's not the case here. The minute entry of April 22, 2004 was not a ruling on a post-judgment motion. As already explained, it merely memorialized the bankruptcy court's ruling on pre-judgment motions.

29
Lest litigants be misled about when their time to appeal begins to run, there must be some "clear and unequivocal manifestation by the trial court of its belief that the decision made, so far as it is concerned, is the end of the case." Fiataruolo v. United States, 8 F.3d 930, 937 (2d Cir.1993). As we said in Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Assoc., 884 F.2d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir.1989), "Wherever the rules establish a time requirement that limits a litigant's ability to obtain relief from a final judgment, it is imperative that the district court provide a clear signal that the time period within which that relief can be sought has begun to run." Because that kind of certainty is lacking here, the April 22, 2004 minute entry cannot be deemed a final, appealable order.

30
Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court's order dismissing Brown's appeal of the summary judgment rulings for lack of jurisdiction and REMAND for the district court's consideration of his appeal.

Notes:

*
 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argumentSee Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

1
 In a separate memorandum disposition filed contemporaneously with this opinion, we reverse the bankruptcy court's award of sanctions against Ronald Ellett, Brown's counsel

2
 Ordinarily, findings of fact and conclusions of law are made in the wake of a contested hearing, not in the course of granting summary judgment, which presupposes that the facts are undisputed. We presume that the bankruptcy judge meant either that he would allow counsel to submit a proposed written order granting the motion and containing the judge's rationale, or a proposed formal written judgment dismissing the action

3
 Two things are necessary to trigger the time in which to appeal: (i) the lower court's intent that its order be "final," and (ii) compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, which, in cases like this one, "requires entry of a document distinct from any opinion or memorandum."Hollywood v. City of Santa Maria, 886 F.2d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir.1989); see also Bankr.R. Proc. 9021 (Fed.R.Civ.P. 58 generally applies in bankruptcy). Because the April 22, 2004 minute entry does not satisfy the first requirement for appealability, we do not reach the question of whether it satisfies the "separate document" rule in Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.

4
 In re Slimick involved an order sustaining a trustee's objection to an amended schedule of exemptions, which was necessarily "a complete act of adjudication" in so far as the objection constituted the entire proceeding at hand. 928 F.2d at 307 ("the sustaining of the objection here necessarily simultaneously denied the amended exemption claim"). The same is not true of a motion for summary judgment within an adversary proceeding; there, finality is achieved when the entire proceeding is dismissed, see In re Cahn, 188 B.R. at 630, not when one motion is granted or denied. In other words, with respect to the "pragmatic approach" to finality, Brown's adversary proceeding was the "interim dispute[ ]" from which an appeal may lie, In re Slimick, 928 F.2d at 307 n. 1, not the cross-motions for summary judgment.

31
RYMER, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment:

32
I agree that Brown's appeal to the district court was timely, though for somewhat different reasons.

33
Brown argues that the April 22 minute order was not final because it was intertwined with a sanctions motion on which the bankruptcy court had not yet ruled. If so, then the bankruptcy court's June 30 order regarding sanctions was the final order, its July 6 judgment was the "separate document" required by Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9021, and the July 15 appeal was timely under Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8002(a).

34
Alternatively, if the April 22 order is independent of the sanctions motion, then the question is whether the minute entry was a "document" within the meaning of Bankruptcy Rule 9021, which incorporates Fed.R.Civ.P. 58. We have held that a minute order denying post-judgment relief constitutes a "document" for purposes of Civil Rule 58 only "if it (1) states that it is an order; (2) is mailed to counsel; (3) is signed by the clerk who prepared it; and (4) is entered on the docket sheet." Ingram v. ACandS, Inc., 977 F.2d 1332, 1338-39 (9th Cir.1992) (citing Beaudry Motor Co. v. Abko Props., Inc., 780 F.2d 751, 754-55 (9th Cir.1986)); Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 884 F.2d 1186, 1188-90 (9th Cir.1989). While it is possible that more should be required of a document purporting to set forth summary judgment than of a post-judgment order, certainly we should not require less. This being so, the minute entry here could not trigger the clock for filing an appeal because, at a minimum, it was not mailed to counsel.1

35
As the appeal would be timely even if the minute order were final, I wouldn't venture to guess what more magic words are needed to make an order granting summary judgment a final disposition in bankruptcy than "It is ordered . . . granting Wilshire's motion for summary judgment." I'd stick with In re Slimick, 928 F.2d 304, 305-06 (9th Cir.1990).

Notes:

1
 I express no opinion as to whether electronic communication satisfies or renders obsolete the mailing requirement inACandS, as Wilshire's contention to this effect is not supported by the record.


230 F.Supp. 845 (1964)
VIRGIN ISLANDS HOUSING AUTHORITY, Plaintiff,
v.
15.5521 U. S. ACRES OF LAND IN ST. CROIX, VIRGIN ISLANDS, Golden Rock Land Development Corp., Golden Rock Housing Development Co., Chevron Capital Corp., Basic Capital Corp., Slayton Equities Corp., Louis and Yrma Ratener, and Unknown Owners, Defendants.
Civ. No. 68.
District Court, Virgin Islands, D. St. Croix, Christiansted Jurisdiction.
June 8, 1964.
Almeric L. Christian, U. S. Atty., Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, V. I., for plaintiff.
Warren H. Young, Young & Isherwood, Christiansted, St. Croix, V. I., for defendants.
STALEY, Circuit Judge (by assignment).
This is a condemnation proceeding in which the plaintiff, Virgin Islands Housing Authority, has filed objections to the report of the commission appointed under 28 V.I.C. § 418 to determine the issue of just compensation for the condemned property. Section 418(d) provides that review of the report of the commission shall be governed by Rule 53(e) (II) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, the findings of fact of the commission must be accepted by this court unless clearly erroneous. The parties have stipulated that the cause shall be submitted to the court upon the pleadings, the transcript of testimony taken before the commission, and supporting memoranda.[1]
In its memorandum the plaintiff asserts three evidentiary points of error in the proceedings before the commission: (1) the admission into evidence of *846 sales of similar property which followed the notice of taking; (2) the refusal to consider the price paid by the defendant, Golden Rock Land Development Corporation, for the entire tract, of which the condemned property is a part; and (3) the admission into evidence of a contract of sale for a part of the condemned premises which preceded the notice of taking by more than six months.[2]
The record shows that the plaintiff filed this civil action on July 23, 1962, to acquire the property in question for the purpose of constructing and operating 200 units of safe and sanitary housing for persons of low income. Notices of taking were served on various defendants shortly thereafter. Following three days of hearings and several views of the premises, the commission filed its report on March 29, 1963. It recommended that the court award the defendant, Golden Rock Land Development Corporation, the sum of $177,969, including $12,950.75 for severance damages.[3] The record discloses that the appraisers for the plaintiff had assessed the total damages at $145,732, while the appraisers for the defendant set the damages at $195,173.32.
The report of the appraisers for the defendant, like that for the plaintiff, divided the condemned property into two parts for purposes of valuation. With respect to the more valuable portion, the defendant's valuation of $15,557 per acre was based on a consideration of three sales during the year 1962. One of these was dated August 20, 1962, or about one month after the notice of taking.[4] In appraising the second portion of the property at $8,323 per acre, the defendant's appraisers considered nine sales during 1962. Three of these followed the notice of taking and were dated August 6, 1962, November 21, 1962, and November 29, 1962. It will thus be seen that the last of these sales occurred approximately four months after the notice of taking.
Before the commission, the plaintiff objected to the consideration of these sales as evidence of fair market value. However, the commission admitted them into evidence, and in its report determining just compensation stated:
"Plaintiff urges the commissioners to consider only sales and agreements made prior to notice of condemnation; the commissioners reject this argument and have considered sales made prior and subsequent to notice of condemnation for the reason that from the testimony of all the appraisers, plaintiff and defendant, market value in St. Croix is in a state of flux and is constantly changing depending on the need of buyer and seller. The commissioners regarded these sales, prior and subsequent to the notice, merely as a guide."
In this court, the plaintiff, citing no case authority, asserts that the consideration of these sales constitutes reversible error. Sole reliance is placed on 28 V.I.C. § 419(6), which provides in relevant part:
"For the purpose of assessing compensation and damages, the right thereto shall be deemed to have accrued at the date of the notice, and *847 its actual value at that date shall be the measure of compensation of all property to be actually taken, and the basis of damages to property not actually taken but injuriously affected. * * *"
But this section cannot be so easily employed to resolve this issue. For though the actual value of the property at the date of the notice is decisive, the propriety of considering comparable sales subsequent to the notice as evidence of value on that date is another matter. The modern trend of the cases, particularly in the Federal courts,[5] is to admit such evidence, provided that the sales are not too remote in time from the notice of taking. United States v. 63.04 Acres of Land, 245 F.2d 140 (C.A.2, 1957); Knollman v. United States, 214 F.2d 106, 109 (C.A.6, 1954); United States v. 3,595.98 Acres of Land, 212 F.Supp. 617 (N.D. Cal., 1962). See also, 85 A.L.R.2d 110, 152, 155-157 (1962); 5 Nichols on Eminent Domain § 21.31[2]. As we have already seen, the last of the sales challenged in the case at bar occurred only four months after the notice of taking, and the first only one month after that date. Of course, the government is not required to pay an increased amount based upon inflated values arising from the condemnation itself. Moreover, factors including the fluidity of the market must be taken into account. But these would appear more properly to be matters affecting the weight to be accorded this evidence, rather than factors which preclude its admissibility. This is particularly true when the finder of fact is a judge or commission sitting without a jury. These considerations are concisely summarized in United States v. 63.04 Acres of Land, 245 F.2d 140, 144 (C.A.2, 1957):
"There is no absolute rule which precludes consideration of subsequent sales. The general rule is that evidence of `similar sales in the vicinity made at or about the same time' is to be the basis for the valuation and evidence of all such sales should generally be admissible, United States v. 5139.5 Acres of Land, etc., 4 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 659, 662; 1 Orgel, Valuation Under Eminent Domain, § 139 (2d Ed. 1953), including subsequent sales. Cf. People ex rel. Horwitz v. Miller, 1st Dept.1944, 267 App.Div. 897, 47 N.Y.S.2d 168; People ex rel. Four Park Ave. Corp. v. Lilly, 1st Dept.1942, 265 App.Div. 68, 37 N.Y. S.2d 733, 737-738. The generality of this rule is limited, however, by the consideration that a condemnation itself may increase prices and the government should not have to pay for such artificially inflated values. See International Paper Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 227 F.2d 201. But that possibility does not produce a hard and fast exclusionary rule. In every case it is a question of judgment as to the extent of this danger and, particularly where a judge is sitting without a jury, it would seem the better practice to admit the evidence and then to weigh it having due regard for the danger of artificial inflation."
We conclude therefore that the commission did not err in law in admitting these sales into evidence. Further, the report of the commission indicates that due consideration was given to the circumstances attending the sales.
Over the objection of his counsel, the sole owner of Golden Rock Land Development Corporation testified on cross examination that he paid $1600 per acre for the 200 acre tract, of which the condemned premises are a part, when he contracted to purchase it in 1957. While admitting this testimony into evidence, the commission stated in its report:
"Plaintiff urges the commissioners to consider the original purchase paid by defendant for the premises; the commissioners reject *848 this argument for the reason that the sale is too remote and does not take into consideration the work and effort of defendant to develop the area and change its status from farm to commercial, and the changing times and growth of the community."
The witness testified that he had spent $500,000 to improve the tract, and the reports of the appraisers for both parties make it abundantly clear that there is a rapidly rising real estate market in St. Croix. Though this court has recently noted that in certain circumstances great weight will be given to the price paid by a defendant for property subsequently condemned, Government of Virgin Islands v. 50.05 Acres of Land, 190 F.Supp. 543 (D.V.I., 1961), we cannot say that the commission erred in failing to attach significance to the price paid by the defendant in the circumstances of this case.
The plaintiff also challenges the admissibility of a contract of sale for a portion of the condemned property. The contract was executed on January 10, 1962, more than six months prior to the notice of taking. The argument is that the contract "being purely executory, and its status being in grave question, it was at best an offer to purchase and hence inadmissible on the question of value." But some twenty years ago the Court of Appeals for this Circuit held that the executory nature of a valid contract of sale which precedes the notice of taking is no impediment to its admissibility into evidence. United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in City of Philadelphia, 144 F.2d 626, 155 A.L.R. 253 (C.A.3, 1944). With regard to the bona fide character of the contract in the case at bar, the commission stated:
"The commissioners have decided to accept the Raetner Sales and Purchase agreement for the reason that although plaintiff intimate [sic] that the agreements were made with the intention of raising land values, he did not sustain his burden and the commissioners are satisfied that the sales agreement was entered into in good faith."
In this setting, the cogent observation of this Circuit in City of Philadelphia seems particularly appropriate:
"* * * It is true that the contract had not been consummated and that, as argued by the government, reception of such evidence makes it possible for a landowner, learning that condemnation of his property is likely, to enter into a collusive agreement of sale so as to manufacture evidence in support of an exorbitant claim. This danger is not to be minimized, particularly in view of the difficulty which might well be entailed in proving such collusion. Yet evidence of a bona fide sale, otherwise relevant, should not be excluded because of the possibility that some landowner might conspire with another to defraud the government by manufacturing collusive evidence. Such objections go to the weight of such evidence rather than to its admissibility, and the trial affords opportunity, both by cross-examination and comment to the jury, to bring such evidence to its proper perspective for the jury's consideration. The penalties of the criminal law also will afford a deterrent to such persons without depriving others of significant evidence of the value of their property in condemnation proceedings." 144 F.2d at 630.
Thus, such contracts must be carefully scrutinized by the trier of fact. But here the commission made a considered finding that the contract was executed in good faith.[6] That finding must be *849 accepted by this court since it is not clearly erroneous.
The report of the commission is adopted, and judgment will be entered for the defendant, Golden Rock Land Development Corporation, in the amount of $177,969. The record discloses that this amount has been paid into the registry of this court by the plaintiff and that a portion of it has already been disbursed to the defendant. Counsel will therefore submit to this court a proposed final judgment consistent with this opinion and satisfactory in form to all parties.
NOTES
[1]  The stipulation fails to mention the report of the commission, but since it is this report to which the plaintiff filed exceptions, the parties obviously intended to include it as a subject for the review of this court.
[2]  In its original objections to the report of the commission, the plaintiff asserted a fourth point of error, i. e., "that other matters, improper, irrelevant and prejudicial were admitted for consideration at the inquiry, and the said Findings and Report are clearly erroneous." The plaintiff failed to particularize this charge, and has apparently abandoned it in this court. In any event, our examination of the record discloses no basis for it.
[3]  Although there were several defendants named in the complaint filed by the plaintiff, the record discloses that only this defendant had the proprietary interest in the premises. Indeed, an order has already been entered by this court disbursing a portion of the funds deposited by the plaintiff to this defendant alone.
[4]  The defendant claims that one of the sales in this group was erroneously dated November 5, 1962, whereas the contract of sale was executed March 3, 1962, and the deed recorded November 5, 1962. Since the plaintiff has not filed a reply memorandum, we assume that this is true. In any event, because of our view of the case, the discrepancy is immaterial.
[5]  28 V.I.C. § 416(b) specifically provides that the procedure in actions for condemnation of property is governed by Rule 71A of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
[6]  It might be noted in passing that the commissioners refused to accept the defendant's evidence of a joint venture relating to the condemned property "for the reason that the profits to be received by [defendant] is nebulous and speculative and bears no direct relationship to the value of the land."


995 So.2d 507 (2008)
SMITH
v.
STATE.
No. 3D08-2776.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
November 17, 2008.
Decision without published opinion. Hab.Corp.denied.