Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for FFMLT Trust 2005-FF8, Mortgage… v. Sfr Investments Pool 1, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as Trustee for FFMLT Trust
2005-FF8, Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2005-FF8,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-16550
D.C. No.
2:18-cv-00597-JCM-VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 2, 2023
Las Vegas, Nevada
Before: RAWLINSON and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,** District
Judge.
FILED
OCT 5 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Plaintiff-Appellant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for
FFMLT Trust 2005-FF8, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-FF8 (“the
Bank”), brought this appeal from a district court order granting the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion of Defendant-Appellee SFR Investments Pool 1,
LLC’s (“SFR”). The order, however, did not finally dispose of SFR’s counterclaim.
The Bank moved for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim, but the district
court denied the motion. The district court did not certify its order as a final judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
With exceptions not pertinent here, we only have jurisdiction over appeals from
final decisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “[A] final decision is a decision by the District
Court that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but
execute the judgment.” United States v. Alvarez-Moreno, 657 F.3d 896, 899 (9th Cir.
2011) (quoting Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989) (cleaned
up)). Because SFR’s counterclaim is still pending in the district court, the order on
appeal is not a final decision, and we lack jurisdiction. See id. The appeal is therefore
DISMISSED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --