Jackson Jr. v. Breckenridge Property Fund 2016 LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 16, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00960
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES R. JACKSON, JR. and Case No.: 3:24-cv-960-CAB-SBC SUZETTE JACKSON, 12 ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL Appellants, 13 WITH PREJUDICE 14 v.

15 BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND [ECF No. 1] 16 2016, 17 Appellee. 18

20 This case comes back to the district court after an unsuccessful appeal to the Ninth 21 Circuit. The Circuit dismissed Appellants’ case for lack of jurisdiction. [ECF No. 25.] 22 Although they do so after the passing of their judicially extended deadline, Appellants have 23 now filed an opening brief. [ECF No. 26.] The Court has demanded—multiple times— 24 that Appellants serve their brief on the Appellee. [ECF Nos. 5, 21]; see Fed. R. Bankr. P. 25 8011. Appellants have yet to provide any proof that Appellee has been served with notice 26 of this bankruptcy appeal. 27 28 1 But another defect plagues this case, and to explain it, the Court briefly sketches the 2 history of the proceeding before the bankruptcy judge. Based on the record before the 3 Court, the key property at issue in the underlying bankruptcy case was a foreclosed home 4 that Appellants claimed some prior interest in.1 [See Bankruptcy Court Hearing (“Hr’g”) 5 at 5:00–5:50.] This home was auctioned off to Appellee, a real party in interest in the 6 bankruptcy case. [Case No. 24-00020-MM7, ECF No. 18-1 at 2.] Appellants filed for 7 bankruptcy after the home in question was foreclosed upon. [Hr’g at 5:00–5:48.] The 8 automatic stay triggered by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) did not go into effect until after the sale 9 (and thus did not prevent the sale). [Id. at 9:35–11:38.] The only transaction that the 10 automatic stay could have applied to was the recording of the deed of sale. [Id. at 18:52– 11 19:07.] The Appellee recorded the deed in apparent violation of the automatic stay 12 because, from their representation, they did not know about the Appellants’ bankruptcy 13 filing and the automatic stay since Appellants never provided notice about the bankruptcy. 14 [See id. at 22:27–23:20.] 15 At a hearing attended by Appellants (proceeding pro se) and Appellee (represented 16 by counsel), Appellee sought annulment of the automatic stay to validate the recording of 17 the deed. [Id. at 5:58–6:34.] In response, Appellants sought to undo the sale of the property 18 at issue and the recording of the deed. [See id. at 10:37–11:38.] The bankruptcy judge 19 found: (1) the Appellee never had notice of the bankruptcy prior to the recording of the 20 deed, (2) that neither party acted in any bad faith, and (3) applying the factors promulgated 21 In re Fjeldsted, 293 B.R. 12 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2003), that the automatic stay should be 22 annulled. [Hr’g at 16:40–20:22.] The bankruptcy judge made clear that the Appellants 23 retained their unlawful detainer arguments for their ongoing state court proceeding, and 24 that the only legal issue properly before the bankruptcy court was the annulment of the 25 automatic stay. [Id. at 20:24–21:40.] 26

27 1 The audio from the May 24, 2024 hearing before the bankruptcy judge has been made part of the record. 28 1 For purposes of this appeal, the sole issue for adjudication is the bankruptcy judge’s 2 || decision to annul the automatic stay. If the Court had jurisdiction to do so, it would review 3 || that decision under an abuse of discretion standard.” In re Fjeldsted, 293 B.R. at 18. But 4 record makes clear that Appellants never moved to stay the bankruptcy court’s decision 5 || pending appeal. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007. Reversing the bankruptcy court for an abuse 6 || of discretion, to put it simply, would no longer stay anything. In summary, even if there 7 || were grounds to reverse the bankruptcy court’s well-reasoned decision, Appellants lack 8 || standing to pursue this claim. See In re Ellis, No. BAP CC-04-1460-BMAMC, 2005 WL 9 6960189, at *4 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Nov. 17, 2005) (dismissing a challenge to an annulment 10 jurisdictional grounds since appellant “did not obtain a stay pending appeal” and he “no 11 |/longer ha[d] an interest in the property”); see also In re P.R.T.C., Inc., 177 F.3d 774, 777 12 || (9th Cir. 1999). 13 The Court DISMISSES this case for lack of jurisdiction. As no relief can be 14 || provided to Appellants, this dismissal is with prejudice. 15 16 Itis SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: December 16, 2024 € 18 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 |} 27 ||2 “This court must accept the bankruptcy court's findings of fact unless, upon review, the court is left with 3g || the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed by the bankruptcy judge.” In re Greene, 583 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2009).