Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 In re: Case No.: 26-cv-76-RSH-GC 12 ASHKAN RAJAEE and NASSIM (Appeal from S.D. Cal. Bankr. 13 RAJAEE, Case No. 3:24-bk-00617-CL) Debtors. 14 _________________________________ ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 15 ASHKAN RAJAEE, 16 Appellant, 17 v. 18 TYLER BRANDON DAVIS, TOPDEVZ 19 LLC, and CHRISTOPHER R. 20 BARCLAY, Chapter 7 Trustee, 21 Appellees. 22 23 Appellant Ashkan Rajaee (“Appellant” or “Rajaee”) appeals from a December 10, 24 2025 order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California (the 25 “Bankruptcy Court”) denying without prejudice Rajaee’s second, third, and fourth motions 26 for reconsideration of the Bankruptcy Court’s prior orders converting Rajaee’s bankruptcy 27 from chapter 11 to chapter 7 and approving settlements of the Chapter 7 Trustee. ECF No. 1 1. The underlying case is In re Ashkan Rajaee & Nassim Rajaee, No. 3:24-bk-00617-CL 2 (S.D. Cal. Bankr.) (the “Bankruptcy Case”). 3 As set forth below, the Court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 4 I. BACKGROUND 5 The Court incorporates the description of the Bankruptcy Case contained in the 6 Court’s October 31, 2025 order denying one of Rajaee’s previous bankruptcy appeals, Case 7 No. 25-cv-667, ECF No. 23. 8 The instant appeal is one of Rajaee’s numerous appeals pending in the U.S. District 9 Court for the Southern District of California, each arising from orders entered in the 10 Bankruptcy Case: 11 (1) No. 25-cv-667-RSH-KSC (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 20, 2025; affirmed 12 on Oct. 31, 2025) 13 (2) No. 25-cv-777-BJC-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal 14 withdrawn on Apr. 16, 2025) 15 (3) No. 25-cv-778-BEN-DEB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal 16 withdrawn on Apr. 4, 2025) 17 (4) No. 25-cv-2850-RSH-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Sept. 24, 2025; pending) 18 (5) No. 25-cv-3480-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed on Oct. 30, 2025; pending) 19 (6) No. 25-cv-3260-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed on Nov. 13, 2025; dismissed 20 on Apr. 23, 2026) 21 (7) No. 25-cv-3506-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Nov. 21, 2025; dismissed on 22 Apr. 23, 2026) 23 (8) No. 25-cv-3530-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Nov. 26, 2025; dismissed on 24 Apr. 23, 2026) 25 (9) The instant appeal, No. 26-cv-76-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Dec. 23, 26 2025) 27 1 (10) No. 26-cv-937-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Feb. 3, 2026; pending)1 2 The instant appeal relates to two prior orders of the Bankruptcy Court: a May 9, 2024 3 order granting conversation of the bankruptcy case from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, see 4 Bankruptcy Case, Dkt. No. 37 (the “Conversion Order”), and a December 10, 2024 order 5 approving certain settlements by the Trustee, see id., Dkt No. 159 (the “Settlement Order”). 6 On December 24, 2024, Rajaee filed his first motion to reconsider the Conversion 7 Order and the Settlement Order. Id., Dkt. No. 176. On March 6, 2025, the Bankruptcy 8 Court denied that motion. Id., Dkt. No. 236. 9 On March 21, 2025, Rajaee filed a notice of appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s denial 10 of his first motion for reconsideration. See In re Rajaee, No. 25-cv-667-RSH-KSC, ECF 11 No. 1. On October 31, 2025, this Court affirmed. Id., Dkt. No. 23. On November 28, 2025, 12 Rajaee appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See id., ECF No. 25. 13 That appeal remains pending as Case No. 25-8172. See id., ECF No. 26. 14 Rajaee filed second, third, and fourth motions to reconsider on May 7, December 1, 15 and December 9, 2025, respectively. See Bankruptcy Case, Dkt Nos. 354, 693, 715. On 16 December 10, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court denied these motions without prejudice. See id., 17 Dkt. No. 719. The Bankruptcy Court stated: 18 “The filing of a notice of appeal . . . confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of 19 the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer 20 Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). The trial court therefore cannot take actions “over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Id. 21 22 23 1 Additionally, Rajaee has filed several civil lawsuits against one or more of the 24 appellees in this case, including the following actions assigned to the undersigned: (1) Rajaee v. Davis et al., No. 24-cv-1-RSH-KSC (complaint filed Jan. 2, 2024; dismissed on 25 Apr. 12, 2024); (2) Rajaee v. Davis et al., No. 24-cv-549-RSH-KSC (complaint filed Mar. 26 22, 2024; dismissed on Dec. 30, 2024); (3) Rajaee v. Davis et al., No. 24-cv-550-RSH- KSC (complaint filed Mar. 22, 2024; dismissed on Dec. 30, 2024); and (4) Rajaee et al. v. 27 1 These newest reconsideration requests at ECF Nos. 354, 693, & 715 2 address the Conversion Order and Settlement Order – the exact orders 3 the Ninth Circuit is considering. The main contention in all these reconsideration motions is this: a state court’s order affirming an 4 arbitration award is void, so this court lacked jurisdiction to convert his 5 bankruptcy, and all orders deriving from the conversion are improper (ECF Nos. 117, 354, & 693). In its review, the Ninth Circuit will decide 6 that very issue. 7 Since the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the central issue in 8 Debtor’s newest reconsideration motions, the court denies all three of 9 them without prejudice.

10 Id. at 2. 11 Rajaee now appeals the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of his second, third, and fourth 12 motions to reconsider. 13 II. JURISDICTION 14 A party may appeal as of right from “final judgments, orders, and decrees” entered 15 by bankruptcy courts “in cases and proceedings.” See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). “By providing 16 for appeals from final decisions in bankruptcy ‘proceedings,’ as distinguished from 17 bankruptcy ‘cases,’ Congress made ‘orders in bankruptcy cases ... immediately 18 appeal[able] if they finally dispose of discrete disputes within the larger [bankruptcy] 19 case.’” Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 589 U.S. 35, 39 (2020) (quoting Bullard 20 v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496, 501 (2015)). This is because “[a] bankruptcy case 21 encompasses numerous ‘individual controversies, many of which would exist as stand- 22 alone lawsuits but for the bankrupt status of the debtor.’” Ritzen, 589 U.S. at 38 (quoting 23 Bullard, 575 U.S. at 501). 24 In assessing whether an order is “final” for purposes of appealability, the Ninth 25 Circuit applies “a pragmatic approach.” In re Perl, 811 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2016). 26 “A bankruptcy court order is considered final ‘where it 1) resolves and seriously affects 27 1 substantive rights and 2) finally determines the discrete issue to which it is addressed.’” In 2 re SK Foods, L.P., 676 F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re AFI Holding, 530 F.3d 3 832, 836 (9th Cir. 2008)); see also In re Marino, 949 F.3d 483, 487 (9th Cir. 2020) (“An 4 order in a bankruptcy proceeding is final and thus appealable if it alters the status quo and 5 fixes the rights and obligations of the parties or alters the legal relationships among the 6 parties.”) (cleaned up). 7 If a bankruptcy court’s order is interlocutory rather than final, district courts have 8 limited discretionary appellate jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(2), (3); Fed. R. Bankr. 9 P. 8004. “[T]he Ninth Circuit has explained that courts should not grant leave to appeal 10 from an interlocutory order of a bankruptcy judge unless the following requirements are 11 met: ‘(1) that there be a controlling question of law, (2) that there be substantial grounds 12 for difference of opinion, and (3) that an immediate appeal may materially advance the 13 ultimate termination of the litigation.’” In re Thinkfilm, LLC, No. 12-9795, 2013 WL 14 654010, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013) (quoting In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 15 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982)); accord Vistam, Inc. v. Flahaut, No. 2:24-cv-4460-SSS, 2024 16 WL 5480346, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2024). “While district courts have discretionary 17 authority to hear interlocutory appeals, review of interlocutory orders is generally 18 disfavored.” In re Thinkfilm, LLC, 2013 WL 654010, at *1. 19 Additionally, “the filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the trial court of 20 jurisdiction.” In re Silberkraus, 336 F.3d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 2003). The notice of appeal is 21 “an event of jurisdictional significance” that “confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals 22 and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the 23 appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). This rule 24 “promote[s] judicial economy and avoid[s] the confusion that would ensue from having 25 the same issues before two courts simultaneously.” Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Sw. 26 Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 27 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983)). 1 Here, for the reasons stated by the Bankruptcy Court, that court as well as this one 2 || lack jurisdiction to reconsider those aspects of the Bankruptcy Case that are the subject of 3 || Rajaee’s pending Ninth Circuit appeal. This includes Rajaee’s request for reconsideration 4 || of the Conversion Order and the Settlement Order. Although Rajace argues that the various 5 ||motions for reconsideration raise different arguments, ECF No. 11 at 8-11, they seek 6 || reconsideration of the same orders. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of Rajaee’s 7 || second, third, and fourth motions for reconsideration was made without prejudice to further 8 ||requests to the Bankruptcy Court that may become appropriate in light of the Ninth 9 || Circuit’s resolution of the appeal. The Bankruptcy Court’s December 10, 2025 order was 10 not a final order. The Court declines to grant leave for an interlocutory appeal of that 11 |/order to this Court, given that Rajaee’s request for reconsideration is already pending 12 || before the Ninth Circuit. 13 Accordingly, this Court dismisses Rajaee’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 14 CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, Rajaee’s appeal is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is 16 || directed to close the case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ 18 Dated: April 23, 2026 fob □ SE 19 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28