In re: Ashkan Rajaee and Nassim Rajaee
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Outcome
- dismissed — the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The Trustee moved to dismiss an appeal from a bankruptcy court order granting an interim fee application, arguing the order was interlocutory and not appealable. The District Court granted the motion, dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and denied the appellant's related motions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED; Appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.“For the foregoing reasons, the Trustee’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 5] is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for appealability of bankruptcy orders. Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), appeals as of right are limited to final orders. The Ninth Circuit has consistently held that interim fee awards are interlocutory because they are subject to future adjustment and do not finally determine the discrete issue of the trustee's total compensation. The court cited the correct authorities (In re Strand, In re Evangeline Ref. Co.) to support this conclusion. The court also correctly noted that the appellant failed to meet the high bar for discretionary interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(2)-(3). |
Appellant's Motion Challenging Validity of Trustee's Election for District Court Review (ECF No. 8) is DENIED.“The Court also denies Rajaee’s motion challenging the validity of the Trustee’s election for district court review, in which motion Rajaee yet again seeks to relitigate his San Diego Superior Court loss. ECF No. 8 at 14-15.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the Trustee is a proper party and entitled to elect district court review under 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1)(B). The court noted that the motion was an attempt to collaterally attack a prior state court judgment, which is not a valid basis to challenge the procedural election of the reviewing court. The denial is consistent with the law. |
Appellant's Motion for Permission to E-File (ECF No. 18) is DENIED as moot.“The Court also denies as moot Rajaee’s motion for permission to e-file. ECF No. 18.” | agree with court Since the appeal is dismissed and the case is closed, any pending procedural motions regarding the filing method are moot. This is a standard procedural disposition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for appealability of bankruptcy orders, distinguishing between final and interlocutory orders. It correctly applies the Ninth Circuit precedent that interim fee awards are interlocutory and therefore not appealable as of right. It also correctly notes that the appellant failed to meet the requirements for discretionary interlocutory review. The court's additional observations regarding the appellant's pattern of litigation and collateral attacks on prior judgments provide context but do not affect the legal analysis, which stands on its own.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
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-2968-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, [ECF Nos. 5, 8, 18] 16 Appellant, 17 v. 18 CHRISTOPHER R. BARCLAY, Chapter 19 7 Trustee, et al., 20 Appellees. 21 22 Appellant Ashkan Rajaee (“Appellant” or “Rajaee”) appeals from a March 30, 2026 23 order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California (the “Bankruptcy 24 Court”) granting the Chapter 7 Trustee’s second interim fee application. ECF No. 1. The 25 underlying case is In re Ashkan Rajaee & Nassim Rajaee, No. 3:24-bk-00617-CL (S.D. 26 Cal. Bankr.) (the “Bankruptcy Case”). 27 1 As set forth below, the Court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 2 I. BACKGROUND 3 The Court incorporates the description of the Bankruptcy Case contained in the 4 Court’s October 31, 2025 order denying one of Rajaee’s previous bankruptcy appeals, Case 5 No. 25-cv-667, ECF No. 23. 6 The instant appeal is one of Rajaee’s numerous appeals pending in the U.S. District 7 Court for the Southern District of California, each arising from an order entered in the 8 Bankruptcy Case, including: 9 (1) No. 25-cv-667-RSH-KSC (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 20, 2025; affirmed 10 on Oct. 31, 2025) 11 (2) No. 25-cv-777-BJC-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal 12 withdrawn on Apr. 16, 2025) 13 (3) No. 25-cv-778-BEN-DEB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal 14 withdrawn on Apr. 4, 2025) 15 (4) No. 25-cv-2850-RSH-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Sept. 24, 2025; affirmed 16 on Apr. 23, 2026) 17 (5) No. 25-cv-3480-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed on Oct. 30, 2025; dismissed 18 on May 21, 2026) 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) No. 26-cv-76-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Dec. 23, 2025; dismissed on 26 Apr. 23, 2026) 27 (10) No. 26-cv-937-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Feb. 3, 2026; pending) 1 (11) The instant appeal, No. 26-cv-2968-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Apr. 13, 2 2026) 3 (12) No. 26-cv-2969-RSH-JLB (notice of appeal filed Apr. 13, 2026; pending) 4 (13) No. 26-cv-3058-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 5 (14) No. 26-cv-3060-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 6 (15) No. 26-cv-3065-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 7 (16) No. 26-cv-3162-RSH-AHG (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 8 (17) No. 26-cv-3165-RSH-AHG (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 9 (18) No. 26-cv-3166-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 10 (19) No. 26-cv-3170-RSH-DDL (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending)1 11 To date, none of these appeals have been successful. 12 The instant appeal is taken from the Bankruptcy Court’s March 30, 2026 order 13 granting the Trustee’s second interim application for compensation and reimbursement of 14 expenses, over Rajaee’s opposition. See Bankruptcy Case, Dkt. No. 886 at 2. 15 On May 20, 2026, the Trustee moved to dismiss the appeal. ECF No. 5. The motion 16 is fully briefed. See ECF Nos. 13, 14. 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 A party may appeal as of right from “final judgments, orders, and decrees” entered 19 by bankruptcy courts “in cases and proceedings.” See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). “By providing 20 for appeals from final decisions in bankruptcy ‘proceedings,’ as distinguished from 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 bankruptcy ‘cases,’ Congress made ‘orders in bankruptcy cases ... immediately 2 appeal[able] if they finally dispose of discrete disputes within the larger [bankruptcy] 3 case.’” Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 589 U.S. 35, 39 (2020) (quoting Bullard 4 v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496, 501 (2015)). This is because “[a] bankruptcy case 5 encompasses numerous ‘individual controversies, many of which would exist as stand- 6 alone lawsuits but for the bankrupt status of the debtor.’” Ritzen, 589 U.S. at 38 (quoting 7 Bullard, 575 U.S. at 501). 8 In assessing whether an order is “final” for purposes of appealability, the Ninth 9 Circuit applies “a pragmatic approach.” In re Perl, 811 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2016). 10 “A bankruptcy court order is considered final ‘where it 1) resolves and seriously affects 11 substantive rights and 2) finally determines the discrete issue to which it is addressed.’” In 12 re SK Foods, L.P., 676 F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re AFI Holding, 530 F.3d 13 832, 836 (9th Cir. 2008)); see also In re Marino, 949 F.3d 483, 487 (9th Cir. 2020) (“An 14 order in a bankruptcy proceeding is final and thus appealable if it alters the status quo and 15 fixes the rights and obligations of the parties or alters the legal relationships among the 16 parties.”) (cleaned up). 17 If a bankruptcy court’s order is interlocutory rather than final, district courts have 18 limited discretionary appellate jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(2), (3); Fed. R. Bankr. 19 P. 8004. “[T]he Ninth Circuit has explained that courts should not grant leave to appeal 20 from an interlocutory order of a bankruptcy judge unless the following requirements are 21 met: ‘(1) that there be a controlling question of law, (2) that there be substantial grounds 22 for difference of opinion, and (3) that an immediate appeal may materially advance the 23 ultimate termination of the litigation.’” In re Thinkfilm, LLC, No. 12-9795, 2013 WL 24 654010, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013) (quoting In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 25 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982)); accord Vistam, Inc. v. Flahaut, No. 2:24-cv-4460-SSS, 2024 26 WL 5480346, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2024). “While district courts have discretionary 27 1 authority to hear interlocutory appeals, review of interlocutory orders is generally 2 disfavored.” In re Thinkfilm, LLC, 2013 WL 654010, at *1. 3 Here, Rajaee’s appeal does not challenge a final order of the Bankruptcy Court. 4 “Because interim awards are interlocutory and often require future adjustments, they are 5 ‘always subject to the court’s reexamination and adjustment during the course of the case.’” 6 In re Strand, 375 F.3d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Evangeline Ref. Co., 890 7 F.2d 1312, 1321 (5th Cir. 1989)). “Interim fee awards are not final determinations intended 8 to put a matter to rest.” In re Evangeline Ref. Co., 890 F.2d at 1322. None of the grounds 9 that would justify an interlocutory appeal are present here. 10 Rajaee’s objections to the interim fee award have virtually nothing to do with the fee 11 award itself. Instead, he seeks to use litigation over the fee award as a way to collaterally 12 attack a judgment entered years ago in San Diego Superior Court. See ECF No. 13 at 5-9. 13 The Bankruptcy Court correctly overruled Rajaee’s objections as unrelated and tangential 14 to the fee application. See Bankruptcy Case, Dkt. No. 886 at 2. 15 Accordingly, this Court dismisses Rajaee’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court 16 also denies Rajaee’s motion challenging the validity of the Trustee’s election for district 17 court review, in which motion Rajaee yet again seeks to relitigate his San Diego Superior 18 Court loss. ECF No. 8 at 14-15. The Trustee is clearly a proper party to Rajaee’s appeal 19 and as such was entitled to elect district court review of the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 20 158(c)(1)(B). The Court also denies as moot Rajaee’s motion for permission to e-file. ECF 21 No. 18. 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Trustee’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 5] is 3 GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Rajaee’s motions 4 || [ECF No. 8, 18] are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: July 8, 2026 Kobut How 7 Hon. Robert S. Huie g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28