In re: Ashkan Rajaee and Nassim Rajaee v. Christopher R. Barclay

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-3530-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 [ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15] Appellant, 17 v. 18 CHRISTOPHER R. BARCLAY, 19 Chapter 7 Trustee, WEINBERG 20 GONSER FROST LLP, and JORDAN MATTHEWS, 21 Appellees. 22

23 Appellant Ashkan Rajaee (“Appellant” or “Rajaee”) appeals from a November 12, 24 2025 order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California (the 25 “Bankruptcy Court”) denying Rajaee’s “motion for findings and conclusions.” ECF No. 1. 26 27 1 The underlying case is In re Ashkan Rajaee & Nassim Rajaee, No. 3:24-bk-00617-CL (S.D. 2 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 an order 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2025; affirmed 12 on Oct. 31, 2025) 13 (2) No. 25-cv-777-BJC-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal 14 withdrawn on Apr. 16, 2025) 15 (3) No. 25-cv-778-BEN-DEB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal 16 withdrawn on Apr. 4, 2025) 17 (4) No. 25-cv-2850-RSH-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Sept. 24, 2025; pending) 18 (5) No. 25-cv-3480-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed on Oct.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) The instant appeal, No. 25-cv-3530-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Nov. 26, 24 2025; pending) 25 (9) No. 26-cv-76-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Dec. 23, 2025; pending) 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 the Bankruptcy Court’s July 10, 2025 3 order approving the Trustee’s abandonment to Rajaee of the estate’s claims against 4 attorney Jordan Matthews and the law firm of Weinberg Gonser Frost, LLP (collectively, 5 the “Weinberg Defendants”). See Bankruptcy Case, Dkt. No. 512. 6 On July 24, 2025, Rajaee filed a motion seeking further “findings of fact and 7 conclusions of law” with respect to that July 10, 2025 order. Id., Dkt. No. 539. Rajaee’s 8 motion was based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052. Id. at 9 6. The motion requested that the Bankruptcy Court make further determinations as to ten 10 issues that Rajaee identified. Id. at 8-10. The Trustee opposed. Id., Dkt. No. 558. 11 On November 12, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court denied Rajaee’s motion. Id., Dkt. No. 12 654. In that order, the Bankruptcy Court explained that Rajaee’s motion was requesting 13 additional findings on an order on which he prevailed: 14 Debtor moves under FED. R. BANKR. P. 7052, asking for further findings on the Order at ECF No. 512. The Order at ECF No. 512 was 15 entered as the ruling on the Trustee's notice of abandonment of 16 property. Although the property was abandoned (meaning returned) to Debtor and he prevailed on the motion, he still seeks additional findings 17 on that order. 18 Id. at 2. The Bankruptcy Court turned to Rule 52(a), which requires findings of fact and 19 conclusions of law in connection with a bench trial. Id. at 2. The Bankruptcy Court 20 continued, “[y]et a bench trial did not take place here. Rule 52(a) therefore does not 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 mandate additional findings. Even so, this court made findings and conclusions on the 2 record when it allowed the abandonment (ECF No. 511). Further, Debtor has not appealed 3 Order at ECF No. 512, thus Rule 52’s purpose – aiding appeal from a bench trial – is not 4 served.” Id. 5 Rajaee now appeals from the order denying his request for findings of fact and 6 conclusions of law. 7 II. JURISDICTION 8 A party may appeal as of right from “final judgments, orders, and decrees” entered 9 by bankruptcy courts “in cases and proceedings.” See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). “By providing 10 for appeals from final decisions in bankruptcy ‘proceedings,’ as distinguished from 11 bankruptcy ‘cases,’ Congress made ‘orders in bankruptcy cases ... immediately 12 appeal[able] if they finally dispose of discrete disputes within the larger [bankruptcy] 13 case.’” Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 589 U.S. 35, 39 (2020) (quoting Bullard 14 v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496, 501 (2015)). This is because “[a] bankruptcy case 15 encompasses numerous ‘individual controversies, many of which would exist as stand- 16 alone lawsuits but for the bankrupt status of the debtor.’” Ritzen, 589 U.S. at 38 (quoting 17 Bullard, 575 U.S. at 501). 18 In assessing whether an order is “final” for purposes of appealability, the Ninth 19 Circuit applies “a pragmatic approach.” In re Perl, 811 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2016). 20 “A bankruptcy court order is considered final ‘where it 1) resolves and seriously affects 21 substantive rights and 2) finally determines the discrete issue to which it is addressed.’” In 22 re SK Foods, L.P., 676 F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re AFI Holding, 530 F.3d 23 832, 836 (9th Cir. 2008)); see also In re Marino, 949 F.3d 483, 487 (9th Cir. 2020) (“An 24 order in a bankruptcy proceeding is final and thus appealable if it alters the status quo and 25 fixes the rights and obligations of the parties or alters the legal relationships among the 26 parties.”) (cleaned up). 27 1 If a bankruptcy court’s order is interlocutory rather than final, district courts have 2 limited discretionary appellate jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(2), (3); Fed. R. Bankr. 3 P. 8004. “[T]he Ninth Circuit has explained that courts should not grant leave to appeal 4 from an interlocutory order of a bankruptcy judge unless the following requirements are 5 met: ‘(1) that there be a controlling question of law, (2) that there be substantial grounds 6 for difference of opinion, and (3) that an immediate appeal may materially advance the 7 ultimate termination of the litigation.’” In re Thinkfilm, LLC, No. 12-9795, 2013 WL 8 654010, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013) (quoting In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 9 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982)); accord Vistam, Inc. v. Flahaut, No. 2:24-cv-4460-SSS, 2024 10 WL 5480346, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2024). “While district courts have discretionary 11 authority to hear interlocutory appeals, review of interlocutory orders is generally 12 disfavored.” In re Thinkfilm, LLC, 2013 WL 654010, at *1. 13 Here, Rajaee’s appeal does not challenge a final order of the Bankruptcy Court. The 14 Bankruptcy Court’s refusal to make further findings or conclusions in connection with its 15 approval of an abandonment of estate property did not “resolve[] and seriously affect[] 16 substantive rights,” alter the status quo, determine the rights and obligations of the parties, 17 or alter their legal relationships. The Bankruptcy Court’s November 12, 2025 order was 18 not an appealable final order. Additionally, the Court declines to grant leave for an 19 interlocutory appeal of that order. Far from satisfying the requirements for an interlocutory 20 appeal, Rajaee’s appeal is meritless. As the Bankruptcy Court recognized, Rule 52 does 21 not require findings of fact and conclusions of law in connection with the order at issue 22 here; and in any case, the record reflects that the Bankruptcy Court made findings of fact 23 and conclusions of law. Dkt. No. 511. 24 Accordingly, this Court dismisses Rajaee’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In light 25 of this disposition, the Court also denies the motions Rajaee filed after briefing on the 26 merits was completed, seeking to “dismiss” adverse parties from Rajaee’s own appeal, or 27 to transfer the appeal to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel because the Trustee should not be 1 ||a party to Rajaee’s appeal. ECF Nos. 12-15. The Trustee is clearly a party to Rajaee’s 2 || appeal and as such was entitled to elect district court review of the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 3 |} 158(c)(1)(B). 4 ||. CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, Rajaee’s appeal is DISMISSED. Rajaee’s motions to 6 || dismiss and to transfer [ECF Nos. 12-15] are DENIED. The Trustee’s motion for sanctions 7 || [ECF No. 11] is taken under submission. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ 9 Dated: April 23, 2026 [eebee v8 Hone 10 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28