Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IN RE: ASHKAN MIRFAKHR RAJAEE Case No.: 26-cv-3060-RSH-GC and NASSIM RAJAEE, Bankruptcy No.: 24-00617-CL7 12 Debtors. 13 NASSIM RAJAEE, ORDER GRANTING TRUSTEE’S 14 Appellant, MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING APPELLANT’S 15 v. MOTION TO DETERMINE 16 VALIDITY OF ELECTION CHRISTOPHER R. BARCLAY, Chapter 7 17 Trustee, et al., [ECF Nos. 2, 11] 18 Appellees.

21 Pending before the Court are: (1) a motion filed by appellee Christopher R. Barclay, 22 the Chapter 7 Trustee, to dismiss the appeal, ECF No. 11, and (2) a motion by appellant 23 Nassim Rajaee “to determine invalidity of ineffectiveness of appellees’ decision to 24 proceeding in district court,” ECF No. 2. As set forth below, the Court grants the Trustee’s 25 motion to dismiss and denies Appellant’s motion. 26 // 27 // 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. This Appeal 3 On May 6, 2026, appellant Nassim Rajaee, through her attorney Daryoush 4 Shahrouzi, filed this bankruptcy appeal. ECF No. 1. She appeals from an April 22, 2026 5 order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California (the “Bankruptcy 6 Court”) denying a motion by her co-debtor spouse Ashkan Rajaee seeking an evidentiary 7 hearing, and seeking to cross-examine the Trustee, certain creditors, and their attorneys, in 8 connection with three motions that were pending before the Bankruptcy Court. Id. Ashkan 9 Rajaee has also filed an appeal from the same order. See Case No. 26-cv-3061. The 10 underlying case is In re Ashkan Rajaee & Nassim Rajaee, No. 3:24-bk-00617-CL7 (S.D. 11 Cal. Bankr.) (the “Bankruptcy Case”); see also Bankruptcy Case, Dkt. No. 921 (Apr. 22, 12 2026 Order on Debtor Ashkan Rajaee’s Omnibus Motion Requesting an Evidentiary 13 Hearing and an Opportunity to Cross-Examine Declarants. 14 On May 27, 2026, Appellant filed her motion “to determine invalidity of 15 ineffectiveness of appellees’ decision to proceeding in district court.” ECF No. 2. That 16 motion has been fully briefed. See ECF Nos. 5, 8, 9. 17 On June 6, 2026, Christopher R. Barclay, the Chapter 7 Trustee, filed his motion to 18 dismiss the appeal. ECF No. 11.1 19 On August 18, 2026, this Court granted the application of Attorney Shahrouzi to be 20 relieved as Appellant’s counsel based on Appellant’s failure to communicate with him. See 21 ECF Nos. 12 at 5 (motion to withdraw), 13 (order granting motion to withdraw). Appellant 22 is, at this time, unrepresented for purposes of this appeal. 23 // 24 // 25 26 27 1 Appellant’s response was due on August 17, 2026, two weeks prior to the August 31, 2026 hearing date contained on the Trustee’s notice of motion, ECF No. 11. See CivLR 28 1 B. Other Appeals Filed from the Bankruptcy Case 2 This is one of over twenty bankruptcy appeals that Mr. or Ms. Rajaee have taken 3 from the same Bankruptcy Case, including: 4 (1) No. 25-cv-667-RSH-KSC (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 20, 2025; affirmed 5 on Oct. 31, 2025) 6 (2) No. 25-cv-777-BJC-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal 7 withdrawn on Apr. 16, 2025) 8 (3) No. 25-cv-778-BEN-DEB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal 9 withdrawn on Apr. 4, 2025) 10 (4) No. 25-cv-2850-RSH-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Sept. 24, 2025; affirmed 11 on Apr. 23, 2026) 12 (5) No. 25-cv-3480-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed on Oct. 30, 2025; dismissed 13 on May 21, 2026) 14 (6) No. 25-cv-3260-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed on Nov. 13, 2025; dismissed 15 on Apr. 23, 2026) 16 (7) No. 25-cv-3506-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Nov. 21, 2025; dismissed on 17 Apr. 23, 2026) 18 (8) No. 25-cv-3530-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Nov. 26, 2025; dismissed on 19 Apr. 23, 2026) 20 (9) No. 26-cv-76-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Dec. 23, 2025; dismissed on 21 Apr. 23, 2026) 22 (10) No. 26-cv-937-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Feb. 3, 2026; affirmed on July 23 17, 2026) 24 (11) No. 26-cv-2968-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Apr. 13, 2026; dismissed on 25 August 20, 2026) 26 (12) No. 26-cv-2969-RSH-JLB (notice of appeal filed Apr. 13, 2026; dismissed on 27 August 20, 2026) 28 (13) No. 26-cv-3058-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 1 (14) No. 26-cv-3060-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 2 (15) No. 26-cv-3061-RSH-BJW (notice of appeal filed on May 6, 2026; pending) 3 (16) No. 26-cv-3065-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 4 (17) No. 26-cv-3162-RSH-AHG (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; dismissed on 5 August 26, 2026) 6 (18) No. 26-cv-3165-RSH-AHG (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 7 (19) No. 26-cv-3166-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 8 (20) No. 26-cv-3170-RSH-DDL (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending) 9 (21) No. 26-cv-3809-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 13, 2026; dismissed on 10 August 18, 2026) 11 To date, none of these appeals has been successful. 12 This appeal is one of eight notices of appeal filed on the same day—four filed by 13 Ashkan Rajaee proceeding pro se, and four filed by Appellant’s attorney—taking appeals 14 from four Bankruptcy Court orders. In addition to the Bankruptcy Court’s order denying 15 an evidentiary hearing, Mr. and Ms. Rajaee each appeal from three other Bankruptcy Court 16 orders addressing: (1) reconsideration of an order approving abandonment of property, (2) 17 reconsideration for the second time of an order denying a motion to disqualify opposing 18 counsel, and (3) sanctions against the Trustee and the Trustee’s attorneys. See Dkt. Nos. 19 858, 861, 864, 866. 20 On May 20, 2026, Appellant filed in the Bankruptcy Court, pursuant to Fed. R. 21 Bankr. P. 8009(a)(1), a statement of issues for each of her four appeals. Although the four 22 orders being appealed cover a range of different topics, Appellant’s statement of issues for 23 each of the four appeals identically lists the following four issues: 24 1. Judicial Estoppel – putative Chapter 7 trustee Christopher Barclay – Did the bankruptcy court abuse its discretion by failing to apply judicial 25 estoppel to the Chapter 7 arguments? 26 2. Fraud in the Procurement of the San Diego Judgment – Conversion 27 Order – Did the bankruptcy court abuse its discretion by failing to 28 adjudicate the merits of the fraud on the court in the procurement of the 1 San Diego judgment being enforced in bankruptcy proceedings as a proof of claim? 2 3 3. Fraud on the Court – Conversion Order – Did the bankruptcy court abuse its discretion by failing to determine on the merits whether the 4 Conversion Order was procured through fraud on the court, where 5 officers of the court allegedly omitted material jurisdictional, service, standing, and authority facts necessary to give operative effect to the 6 San Diego confirmation judgment? 7 4. Fraud on the Court – Chapter 7 Order on Appeal – Did the 8 bankruptcy court abuse its discretion by entering the Chapter 7 Order 9 on appeal without determining the fraud-on-the-court challenges that officers of the court procured the order through materially misleading 10 half-truths and omissions concerning jurisdiction, standing, service, 11 Tyler Davis's authority, TopDevz, LLC's representation, and the putative Chapter 7 trustee Christopher Barclay’s authority? 12 13 See Bankruptcy Case, Dkt. Nos. 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004. In each of the four cases, 14 Appellant’s statement of issues fails to mention the order that is actually being appealed. 15 II. MOTION TO DISMISS 16 “Under th[e] prudential standing doctrine, only a ‘person aggrieved,’ that is, 17 someone who is ‘directly and adversely affected pecuniarily’ by a bankruptcy court’s order, 18 has standing to appeal that order.” In re Point Ctr. Fin., Inc., 890 F.3d 1188, 1191 (9th Cir. 19 2018) (quoting Fondiller v. Robertson (In re Fondiller), 707 F.2d 441, 443 (9th Cir. 1983)). 20 “An order that diminishes one’s property, increases one’s burdens, or detrimentally affects 21 one’s rights has a direct and adverse pecuniary effect for bankruptcy standing purposes.” 22 Id. The party invoking appellate jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating prudential 23 standing. In re Benham, 220 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1039 (C.D. Cal. 2016); accord In re Hope 24 7 Monroe St. Ltd. P’ship, 743 F.3d 867, 872 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“As in other jurisdictional 25 contexts, the party invoking appellate jurisdiction to review a bankruptcy court order has 26 the burden of demonstrating prudential standing.”) (citing Spenlinhauer v. O’Donnell, 261 27 F.3d 113, 118 (1st Cir. 2001)). 28 1 The Trustee argues that Appellant lacks prudential standing because she has not 2 shown that she was “directly and adversely affected pecuniarily” by the order she appeals, 3 namely, the order denying her husband’s motion for an evidentiary hearing. ECF No. 11-1 4 at 5. The Court agrees that Appellant has failed to establish prudential standing. Her 5 statement of issues on this appeal fail to even mention the order that she is appealing. 6 Instead of being directed to any pecuniary harm that Appellant suffered as a result of that 7 order, this appeal appears to be part of a coordinated effort to file multiplicitous appeals 8 seeking relitigate the Bankruptcy Court’s order converting this case to Chapter 7—an order 9 that neither debtor timely appealed—or seeking to review the merits of a business dispute 10 that Ashkan Rajaee lost in San Diego Superior Court prior to the debtors’ filing for 11 bankruptcy. See Case No. 26-cv-3162, Dkt. No. 14 at 9–10, 12–15 (Aug. 26, 2026 order 12 dismissing appeal and imposing sanctions on Appellant’s counsel). This appeal is therefore 13 subject to dismissal. 14 III. MOTION TO DETERMINE INVALIDITY OF APPELLEES’ ELECTION 15 Appellant’s motion seeks an order determining that the Chapter 7 Trustee’s election 16 to proceed with this appeal in district court is invalid, and transferring this appeal to the 17 U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) for the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 2 at 17–18. 18 This motion is meritless. There is no dispute that a party to a bankruptcy appeal may 19 timely elect to have an appeal heard by the district court rather than a BAP. See Fed. R. 20 Bankr. P. 8005(a). Appellant does not contest that appellees Tyler Davis and TopDevz, 21 LLC, who are clearly parties to this appeal, timely made such an election. See ECF No. 1- 22 3 (statement of election to proceed in district court). Although difficult to follow, 23 Appellant’s argument appears to be that such an election is somehow ineffective because 24 Appellant challenges the authority of attorney D. Edward Hays to file that document on 25 behalf of his clients Davis and TopDevz. See ECF No. 2 at 11 (“The election is invalid or 26 ineffective because Hays uses disputed authority to select the forum for review of a fraud- 27 evidentiary order.”). Appellant explains that the reason she disputes that attorney’s 28 authority to act for his clients reverts back to Mr. Rajaee’s claims of error in a pre-petition 1 ||judgment entered against him in San Diego Superior Court. See id. (“Davis’s authority to 2 || act for TopDevz, and Hays’s authority to file papers for TopDevz all depend on the same 3 ||San Diego judgment chain procured through fraud and then used to obtain conversion.”). 4 || All this is a non sequitur. The dispute that Appellant’s husband had with his former 5 || business partner Mr. Davis, which resulted in an arbitration ruling affirmed by the state 6 || court, does not bear on the validity of an election by that former business partner to proceed 7 || with this appeal in district court. 8 This Court has denied similar nonsensical motions filed by Appellant in other 9 || bankruptcy appeals, and does so again now. See, e.g., Case No. 26-cv-3162, ECF No. 13 10 (Aug. 18, 2026 order denying Nassim Rajaee’s motion to determine invalidity of Trustee’s 11 || election and directing her counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed); 12 || Case No. 26-cv-3166, ECF No. 13 (same). 13 |TV. MOTION TO DETERMINE INVALIDITY OF APPELLEES' ELECTION 14 For the foregoing reasons: 15 1. The Trustee’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED. The appeal is 16 || DISMISSED. 17 2. Appellant’s motion to determine validity of election [ECF No. 2] is DENIED. 18 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 26, 2026 Johut ¢ Loree 7 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28