In re: Ashkan Rajaee and Nassim Rajaee

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 23, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02850
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 In re: Case No.: 25-cv-2850-RSH-JLB

12 ASHKAN RAJAEE and NASSIM (Appeal from S.D. Cal. Bankr. 13 RAJAEE, Case No. 3:24-bk-00617-CL) Debtors. 14 _________________________________ ORDER AFFIRMING RULING OF 15 U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT ASHKAN RAJAEE, 16

Appellant, 17 v. 18 TYLER BRANDON DAVIS and 19 TOPDEVZ, LLC, 20 Appellees. 21

22 Appellant Ashkan Rajaee (“Appellant” or “Rajaee”) appeals from a September 12, 23 2025 order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California (the 24 “Bankruptcy Court”) denying Rajaee’s motion seeking damages for violations of the 25 automatic stay. ECF No. 1. The underlying case is In re Ashkan Rajaee & Nassim Rajaee, 26 No. 3:24-bk-00617-CL (S.D. Cal. Bankr.) (the “Bankruptcy Case”). 27 1 As set forth below, the Court affirms. 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: 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2025; affirmed 10 on Oct. 31, 2025) 11 (2) No. 25-cv-777-BJC-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal 12 withdrawn on Apr. 16, 2025) 13 (3) No. 25-cv-778-BEN-DEB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal 14 withdrawn on Apr. 4, 2025) 15 (4) The instant appeal, No. 25-cv-2850-RSH-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Sept. 16 24, 2025) 17 (5) No. 25-cv-3480-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed on Oct. 30, 2025; pending) 18 (6) No. 25-cv-3260-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed on Nov. 13, 2025; dismissed 19 on Apr. 23, 2026) 20 (7) No. 25-cv-3506-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Nov. 21, 2025; dismissed on 21 Apr. 23, 2026) 22 (8) No. 25-cv-3530-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Nov. 26, 2025; dismissed on 23 Apr. 23, 2026) 24 (9) No. 26-cv-76-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Dec. 23, 2025; dismissed on 25 Apr. 23, 2026) 26 27 1 (10) No. 26-cv-937-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Feb. 3, 2026; pending)1 2 The instant appeal arises in connection with Rajaee’s motion, filed on July 14, 2025, 3 seeking damages for violations of the automatic stay. See Bankruptcy Case, Dkt. No. 523. 4 On September 12, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion. See id., Dkt. No. 5 587. The order stated as follows: 6 The court has considered Debtor’s motion for stay violations (ECF No. 523), Creditor Davis’s opposition (ECF No. 546), Debtor’s reply (ECF 7 No. 559), oral argument at the hearing on the matter, and its own 8 docket. He requests § 362(k) damages, contending the Trustee, Creditor, and his attorney violated the automatic stay. For the reasons 9 set forth below, it will deny the motion. 10 Creditor and his attorney’s actions from 2021 to 2023 are not a basis 11 for stay violations. The stay came into effect on February 26, 2024, 12 upon this bankruptcy’s petition filing (ECF No. 1). All events that happened before then did not violate the stay. § 362; In re The Minoco 13 Grp. of Cos., 799 F.2d 517, 520 (9th Cir. 1986). Among others, those 14 events include the arbitration, state court litigation, and alleged IRS tax fraud. In sum, these pre-petition events do not offend § 362. 15

16 Debtor claims all proceedings and filings by Creditor, his attorney, and the Trustee in this bankruptcy are violative actions. The argument is 17 meritless. The Ninth Circuit is clear that the “stay does not apply to 18 proceedings commenced against the debtor in the bankruptcy court where the debtor's bankruptcy is pending.” In re Miller, 397 F.3d 726, 19 730 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing In re N. Coast Vill., Ltd., 135 B.R. 641, 643 20 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the filings on this court’s docket do not run afoul of the automatic stay. 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 Finally, Debtor claims that Creditor is stalking him. He cites his paper 2 at ECF No. 313 pg. 27 where he quoted messages allegedly from 3 Creditor. However, Debtor provides no evidence, such as screenshots, of the messages’ origin, date, or sender. Without this information, the 4 court cannot determine if there is a stay offense. And the debtor bears 5 the burden of proving such a violation by sufficient and persuasive evidence. On the current record, then, the court cannot find a stay 6 violation to have occurred. 7 . . . . 8

9 Debtor has not shown an offending action under § 362’s automatic stay. Consequently, there are no grounds for damages. §§ 105, 362 & 524. 10 The motion is denied without prejudice. 11 Id. at 2. 12 Rajaee appeals from this order denying his motion for damages. 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 The issue on this appeal is whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in determining that 15 there was no violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362. Appellees state that 16 “[t]his Court must determine if the subject order is final for it to exercise jurisdiction over 17 this appeal,” ECF No. 6 at 2, but devote little attention to the issue, and request affirmance 18 of the Bankruptcy Court’s order rather than dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 19 Rajaee maintains that the order at issue is final and appealable. ECF No. 5 at 12. This Court 20 agrees with Rajaee in this regard. See In re Cimarron Investors, 848 F.2d 974, 975 (9th 21 Cir. 1988) (“This court’s jurisdiction flows from 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) because a grant or 22 denial of a motion for relief from an automatic stay is considered a final order.”); In re 23 Universal Life Church, No. CV-F-93-5893-OWW, 1994 WL 776884, at *1, *3 (E.D. Cal. 24 1994) (determining that a bankruptcy court order denying a motion for violation of 11 25 U.S.C. § 362 is a final order for purposes of appeal to the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 26 158(a)). 27 1 “Whether the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) have been violated is 2 a question of law reviewed de novo.” In re Mwangi, 764 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2014) 3 (quoting Eskanos & Adler, P.C. v. Leetien, 309 F.3d 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). 4 Rajaee does not meaningfully address the Bankruptcy Court’s reasons for denying 5 his motion for damages: namely, that neither the allegations about pre-petition events, nor 6 grievances about filings within the Bankruptcy Case, amount to violations of the automatic 7 stay. Indeed, Rajaee’s principal brief does not discuss the automatic stay or 11 U.S.C. § 8 362. 9 Instead, Rajaee’s contention on appeal is that the Bankruptcy Court’s September 12, 10 2025 order on his damages motion is “demonstrably void” because it was “procured by 11 fraud.” ECF No. 5 at 47. He asserts that “predicate jurisdiction never attached to prior 12 orders” of the Bankruptcy Court, with the result that neither the appellees nor the Chapter 13 7 Trustee have “standing” in the Bankruptcy Case. Id. In his reply brief, Rajaee explains 14 that his theory is that the Bankruptcy Court denied Rajaee’s motion for damages “without 15 first resolving the predicate jurisdictional, standing, and fraud-on-the-court issues that, if 16 decided in [Rajaee’s] favor, mean [Rajaee] never ceased being the Chapter 11 debtor-in- 17 possession and that later acts of control over estate property were unauthorized from 18 inception.” ECF No. 7 at 5. These “jurisdictional, standing, and fraud-on-the-court issues” 19 in turn refer back to Rajaee’s pre-petition business dispute with appellees—in which 20 appellees obtained an arbitration award against Rajaee, and the San Diego Superior Court 21 confirmed the award, both events in 2023. See id. Rajaee’s position seems to be that a 22 federal court ruling that fails to rectify the alleged errors in the arbitration award and the 23 state court judgment is itself not only erroneous but void.2 24

25 26 2 Rajaee’s reply brief further explains: “The reason the stay violations matter is the May 9, 2024, conversion order. Appellees rely on that order as the event that converted the 27 1 These assertions are without merit. Rajaee has not demonstrated that the September 2 12, 2025 order on his damages motion was erroneous, or void, or procured by fraud. His 3 filing of a motion alleging a violation of the automatic stay did not somehow obligate the 4 Bankruptcy Court to reconsider its May 9, 2024 order converting Rajaee’s Chapter 11 5 filing to Chapter 7—an order Rajaee did not appeal—to address whether the Chapter 7 6 Trustee had “standing” to oppose Rajaee’s motion or to fulfill its court-appointed role. Nor 7 did Rajaee’s damages motion require the Bankruptcy Court, through addressing the 8 “standing” of appellees as claimants in the bankruptcy case, to reevaluate the arbitration 9 award or state court judgment from 2023. Indeed, over two years ago in a separate federal 10 lawsuit that Rajaee filed, this Court determined that such review was barred by the Rooker- 11 Feldman doctrine. See Rajaee v. Davis et al., No. 24-cv-1-RSH-KSC, ECF No. 138 (Apr. 12 11, 2024 order of dismissal). Rajaee is not entitled to compel a bankruptcy court or a district 13 court to collaterally review the outcome of a prior state court proceeding merely by 14 insisting that such review poses a “threshold” question, or a question of “predicate 15 jurisdiction,” in connection with a motion he files. 16 The Court affirms the September 12, 2025 order of the Bankruptcy Court for the 17 reasons stated therein. 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 22 23 ‘Barclay’), and extinguished Appellant’s authority as debtor-in-possession. But the 24 conversion order did not arise in a vacuum. It expressly relied on Davis and TopDevz’s counsel, D. Edward Hays’s (‘Hays’) use of the arbitration ruling and the August 15, 2023, 25 San Diego confirmation judgment through ECF 19. Doc. 5 at 19-21, 44-47. If a federal 26 court gives operative effect to a state court predicate that was entered notwithstanding a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the federal court has acted ‘in a manner inconsistent 27 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the September 12, 2025 order of the Bankruptcy Court 3 || [Dkt. No. 587] is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ 5 Dated: April 23, 2026 [ehw 7 Howe 6 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28