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-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 GRANTING IN PART 15 APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR ASHKAN RAJAEE, REHEARING AND AMENDING 16 ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL Appellant, 17 v. [ECF No. 22] 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 second interim fee application of the Chapter 7 Trustee’s attorneys. 25 ECF No. 1. The underlying case is In re Ashkan Rajaee & Nassim Rajaee, No. 3:24-bk- 26 00617-CL (S.D. Cal. Bankr.) (the “Bankruptcy Case”). 27 1 On July 8, 2026, the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 20. 2 On July 22, 2026, Rajaee moved for rehearing of the dismissal, arguing inter alia that the 3 Court’s dismissal order erroneously addressed the Bankruptcy Court’s March 30, 2026 4 order granting the second interim fee application of the Trustee, rather than addressing the 5 Bankruptcy Court’s order entered the same day granting the second interim fee application 6 of the Trustee’s attorneys. 7 As set forth below, the Court grants in part Rajaee’s motion for rehearing, and 8 amends the Court’s previous dismissal order as set forth below—identical in reasoning to 9 the dismissal order previously entered [ECF No. 20]. Also for the reasons set forth below, 10 the Court declines to further reconsider that order based on Rajaee’s meritless arguments, 11 which do not adequately address the underlying lack of appellate jurisdiction. 12 AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 13 I. BACKGROUND 14 The Court incorporates the description of the Bankruptcy Case contained in the 15 Court’s October 31, 2025 order denying one of Rajaee’s previous bankruptcy appeals, Case 16 No. 25-cv-667, ECF No. 23. 17 The instant appeal is one of Rajaee’s numerous appeals pending in the U.S. District 18 Court for the Southern District of California, each arising from an order entered in the 19 Bankruptcy Case, including: 20 (1) No. 25-cv-667-RSH-KSC (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 20, 2025; affirmed 21 on Oct. 31, 2025) 22 (2) No. 25-cv-777-BJC-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal 23 withdrawn on Apr. 16, 2025) 24 (3) No. 25-cv-778-BEN-DEB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal 25 withdrawn on Apr. 4, 2025) 26 (4) No. 25-cv-2850-RSH-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Sept. 24, 2025; affirmed 27 on Apr. 23, 2026) 1 (5) No. 25-cv-3480-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed on Oct. 30, 2025; dismissed 2 on May 21, 2026) 3 (6) No. 25-cv-3260-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed on Nov. 13, 2025; dismissed 4 on Apr. 23, 2026) 5 (7) No. 25-cv-3506-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Nov. 21, 2025; dismissed on 6 Apr. 23, 2026) 7 (8) No. 25-cv-3530-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Nov. 26, 2025; dismissed on 8 Apr. 23, 2026) 9 (9) No. 26-cv-76-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Dec. 23, 2025; dismissed on 10 Apr. 23, 2026) 11 (10) No. 26-cv-937-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Feb. 3, 2026; affirmed on July 12 17, 2026) 13 (11) No. 26-cv-2968-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Apr. 13, 2026) (dismissed on 14 July 8, 2026) 15 (12) No. 26-cv-2969-RSH-JLB (notice of appeal filed Apr. 13, 2026; dismissed on 16 July 8, 2026) 17 (13) No. 26-cv-3058-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 18 (14) No. 26-cv-3060-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 19 (15) No. 26-cv-3061-RSH-BJW (notice of appeal filed on May 6, 2026; pending) 20 (16) No. 26-cv-3065-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 21 (17) No. 26-cv-3162-RSH-AHG (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 22 (18) No. 26-cv-3165-RSH-AHG (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 23 (19) No. 26-cv-3166-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 24 (20) No. 26-cv-3170-RSH-DDL (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 25 26 27 1 (21) No. 26-cv-3809-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 13, 2026; dismissed on 2 August 18, 2026)1 3 To date, none of these appeals have been successful. 4 The instant appeal is taken from the Bankruptcy Court’s March 30, 2026 order 5 granting the second interim application for compensation and reimbursement of expenses, 6 over Rajaee’s opposition, of the Trustee’s attorneys. See Bankruptcy Case, Dkt. No. 890 at 7 2. 8 On May 20, 2026, the Trustee and his attorneys moved to dismiss the appeal. ECF 9 No. 5. The motion was fully briefed. See ECF Nos. 13, 14. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 A party may appeal as of right from “final judgments, orders, and decrees” entered 12 by bankruptcy courts “in cases and proceedings.” See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). “By providing 13 for appeals from final decisions in bankruptcy ‘proceedings,’ as distinguished from 14 bankruptcy ‘cases,’ Congress made ‘orders in bankruptcy cases ... immediately 15 appeal[able] if they finally dispose of discrete disputes within the larger [bankruptcy] 16 case.’” Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 589 U.S. 35, 39 (2020) (quoting Bullard 17 v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496, 501 (2015)). This is because “[a] bankruptcy case 18 encompasses numerous ‘individual controversies, many of which would exist as stand- 19 alone lawsuits but for the bankrupt status of the debtor.’” Ritzen, 589 U.S. at 38 (quoting 20 Bullard, 575 U.S. at 501). 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. 27 1 In assessing whether an order is “final” for purposes of appealability, the Ninth 2 Circuit applies “a pragmatic approach.” In re Perl, 811 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2016). 3 “A bankruptcy court order is considered final ‘where it 1) resolves and seriously affects 4 substantive rights and 2) finally determines the discrete issue to which it is addressed.’” In 5 re SK Foods, L.P., 676 F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re AFI Holding, 530 F.3d 6 832, 836 (9th Cir. 2008)); see also In re Marino, 949 F.3d 483, 487 (9th Cir. 2020) (“An 7 order in a bankruptcy proceeding is final and thus appealable if it alters the status quo and 8 fixes the rights and obligations of the parties or alters the legal relationships among the 9 parties.”) (cleaned up). 10 If a bankruptcy court’s order is interlocutory rather than final, district courts have 11 limited discretionary appellate jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(2), (3); Fed. R. Bankr. 12 P. 8004. “[T]he Ninth Circuit has explained that courts should not grant leave to appeal 13 from an interlocutory order of a bankruptcy judge unless the following requirements are 14 met: ‘(1) that there be a controlling question of law, (2) that there be substantial grounds 15 for difference of opinion, and (3) that an immediate appeal may materially advance the 16 ultimate termination of the litigation.’” In re Thinkfilm, LLC, No. 12-9795, 2013 WL 17 654010, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013) (quoting In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 18 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982)); accord Vistam, Inc. v. Flahaut, No. 2:24-cv-4460-SSS, 2024 19 WL 5480346, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2024). “While district courts have discretionary 20 authority to hear interlocutory appeals, review of interlocutory orders is generally 21 disfavored.” In re Thinkfilm, LLC, 2013 WL 654010, at *1. 22 Here, Rajaee’s appeal does not challenge a final order of the Bankruptcy Court. 23 “Because interim awards are interlocutory and often require future adjustments, they are 24 ‘always subject to the court’s reexamination and adjustment during the course of the case.’” 25 In re Strand, 375 F.3d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Evangeline Ref. Co., 890 26 F.2d 1312, 1321 (5th Cir. 1989)). “Interim fee awards are not final determinations intended 27 1 put a matter to rest.” Jn re Evangeline Ref. Co., 890 F.2d at 1322. None of the grounds 2 || that would justify an interlocutory appeal are present here. 3 Rajaee’s objections to the interim fee award have virtually nothing to do with the fee 4 award itself. Instead, he seeks to use litigation over the fee award as a way to collaterally 5 || attack a judgment entered years ago in San Diego Superior Court. See ECF No. 13 at 5-9. 6 || The Bankruptcy Court correctly overruled Rajaee’s objections as unrelated and tangential 7 ||to the fee application. See Bankruptcy Case, Dkt. No. 890 at 2. 8 Accordingly, this Court dismisses Rajaee’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court 9 ||also denies Rajaee’s motion challenging the validity of the Trustee’s election for district 10 court review, in which motion Rajaee yet again seeks to relitigate his San Diego Superior 11 Court loss. ECF No. 8 at 14-15. The Trustee is clearly a proper party to Rajaee’s appeal 12 as such was entitled to elect district court review of the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 13 |} 158(c)(1)(B). The Court also denies as moot Rajaee’s motion for permission to e-file. ECF 14 || No. 18. 15 CONCLUSION 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Trustee’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 5] is 17 || GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Rajaee’s motions 18 || [ECF No. 8, 18] are DENIED. 19 Rajaee’s motion for rehearing [ECF No. 22] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in 20 || part as set forth above. The Court’s prior dismissal order [ECF No. 20] is WITHDRAWN. 21 The case remains dismissed and closed. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. fokut C Lowe 23 Dated: August 20, 2026 24 Hon. Robert S. Huie 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28