Russell Todd Leff v. The Bank of New York Mellon, et al.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 2:25-cv-00664-JAD Russell Todd Leff, 4 Appellant Order Denying Appellant’s Motions for 5 v. Summary Disposition and to Require Appellees to Prove Authority, Standing, 6 The Bank of New York Mellon, et al., and Real-Party-in-Interest Status

7 Appellees [ECF Nos. 15, 23]

9 Pro se appellant Russell Todd Leff challenges the bankruptcy court’s decision overruling 10 his objections to proofs of claim filed by The Bank of New York Mellon in Leff’s Chapter 13 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Leff filed this appeal on April 7, 2025, but the Bank of New York 12 Mellon and NewRez, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing and Specialized Loan Servicing 13 LLC did not appear to answer the appeal until November 2025. So in September, Leff filed a 14 “motion for summary disposition or default judgment,” asking this court to “decide the appeal on 15 [his] unrebutted filings and the record.”1 And on December 2, 2025, Leff filed a “motion to 16 require appellees to prove authority, standing, and real-party-in-interest status before 17 participating in this appeal.”2 I granted the appellees’ motion for an extension of time to file an 18 answering brief and a response to Leff’s default-judgment motion, and Leff’s appeal is now fully 19 briefed. 20 I deny Leff’s motions. Summary disposition or default judgment is not appropriate 21 because the appellees have appeared and filed an answering brief in this action. And Leff has 22

23 1 ECF No. 15 at 3. 2 ECF No. 23. 1 not shown that this court can or should expand the record on appeal, or require the appellants to 2 provide evidence that was not considered by the bankruptcy court. This court will decide the 3 pending appeal based on the opening brief, answering brief, reply, and any exhibits that are 4 properly a part of the appellate record. 5 Discussion 6 A. The appellees have filed an answering brief, so default judgment or summary 7 disposition is not available.

8 Before the appellees appeared in this case, Leff filed a motion for summary disposition or 9 default judgment under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) 8018(a)(2), asking that 10 this court resolve the appeal upon consideration of his brief alone. But FRBP 8018(a)(2) merely 11 states that “the appellee must serve and file a brief within 30 days after the appellant’s brief is 12 served” unless “the district court . . . by order excuses the filing of briefs or sets a different 13 time.”3 FRBP 8018(a)(4) sets out the consequences for failure to file, stating that “[a]n appellee 14 who fails to file a brief will not be heard at oral argument unless the district court . . . grants 15 permission.”4 16 I find that summary disposition or some other sanction on the appellees is not warranted 17 in this case. Though appellees didn’t appear to defend this appeal for an inexplicably long time, 18 they have since appeared, responded to Leff’s motions, and filed an answering brief with an 19 appendix of exhibits. And I granted appellees’ an extension of time to file all of those 20 documents.5 Leff’s appeal is now fully briefed, and it is this court’s preference to resolve issues 21 22 3 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a), (a)(2). 23 4 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8018(a)(4). 5 ECF No. 33. 1 on their merits whenever possible. So, because “summary dismissal in this situation does not 2 further the goal of ‘the swift and efficient resolution of disputes pertaining to the distribution of 3 the bankruptcy estate,’” I deny Leff’s motion for summary disposition.6 4 B. Leff’s motion to require appellees to prove standing is denied. 5 Leff also moves “to require appellees to prove authority, standing, and real-party-in-

6 interest status before participating in this appeal.”7 He contends that the appellees never proved 7 various facts in the bankruptcy proceedings that call into question their standing to file proofs of 8 claims in those proceedings. Leff asserts that the appellees waived their opposition to his 9 standing arguments by failing to file a response brief. He asks that the court order appellees to 10 produce “evidence of note possession, or a lost note affidavit; complete chain of title from 11 origination to present; servicer authority documentation for Shellpoint; explanation of IRS Form 12 1098 reporting contradictions; and affidavit from a competent witness under penalty of perjury.”8 13 Leff has not shown that it is appropriate to expand the record at this appellate stage of his 14 bankruptcy case. The record on appeal is limited to evidence that was presented to the

15 bankruptcy court in the first instance and the documents discussed in FRBP 8009.9 That rule has 16 no provision for expanding the record with new evidence on appeal. So I conclude that this court 17 lacks the authority to order the production of new evidence. I also note that the arguments Leff 18 advances to support his request for production overlap with his arguments supporting his 19 20

21 6 In re Beachport Ent., 396 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Zer-Ilan v. Frankford (In re CPDC Inc.), 221 F.3d 693, 700 (5th Cir. 2000)). 22 7 ECF No. 23. 23 8 Id. at 6. 9 See Fed. R. Bank. P. 8009. 1||appeal.!° If Leff’s arguments for standing are valid, the court will decide them when resolving Leff’s appeal on its merits. So his motion to require the appellees to produce various documents 3] that were not in the bankruptcy record is denied. 4 Conclusion ° IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Russell Todd Leff’s motion for summary ° disposition or default judgment [ECF No. 15] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Leff’s motion to require appellees to prove authority, standing, and real-party-in-interest status [ECF No. 23] is DENIED. 9

AS ane = 11 US. Tai Jennif Dovey June, 2026 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 © Compare ECF No. 23 with ECF No. 11 (raising standing throughout opening brief).