the district court’s previous ruling on liability. Calculating the appropriate figure, the bankruptcy court granted DCC’s motion, denied Rivera’s, and, several days later, entered final judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Rivera timely appealed to the BAP, which, after a thorough examination of its authority to review interlocutory orders of the district court, affirmed. Luis Rivera Siaca v. DCC Operating, Inc. (In re Olympic Mills Corp.), 333 B.R. 540 (1st Cir. BAP 2005). This appeal ensued. II. DISCUSSION A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. Before addressing the merits, we must deal with the procedural tangle and determine if we have jurisdiction, even though the parties did not originally contest our jurisdiction on appeal. See Doyle v. Huntress, Inc., 419 F.3d 3, 6 (1st Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Indicating at oral argument that the
holding that sovereign immunity issues may be raised sua sponte as they bear on subject matter jurisdiction holding lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction is fundamental error that this court may properly raise and recognize sua sponte holding that we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the bias denial of a motion to reopen based on its sua sponte authority holding that even where subjectmatter jurisdiction may go unchallenged on appeal we have an obligation to inquire sua sponte into our jurisdiction over the matter holding district court had sua sponte responsibility to duty to inquire into the competency of an unrepresented party in certain circumstances