Rajaee v. Barclay

1
26-cv-3170-RSH-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE: ASHKAN MIRFAKHR RAJAEE
and NASSIM RAJAEE,
Debtors.
Case No.: 26-cv-3170-RSH-DDL
Bankruptcy No.: 24-00617-CL7
ASHKAN RAJAEE,
Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER R. BARCLAY, Chapter 7
Trustee,
Appellee.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
[ECF No. 9]
Debtor-Appellant Ashkan Rajaee appeals from an April 22, 2026 order of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California (the “Bankruptcy Court”) denying
Rajaee’s motion for sanctions against the Chapter 7 Trustee and the Trustee’s counsel. See
ECF No. 1 at 1. The underlying case is In re Ashkan Rajaee & Nassim Rajaee, No. 3:24-
bk-00617-CL7 (S.D. Cal. Bankr.) (the “Bankruptcy Case”); see also Bankruptcy Case, Dkt.
No. 925 (Apr. 22, 2026 Order on Debtor’s Motion for Sanctions Against Chapter 7 Trustee
and Counsel). The merits of the appeal have been fully briefed. See ECF Nos. 13, 15, 16.
The following order also addresses Rajaee’s motion to invalidate the Trustee’s
election to proceed in district court. ECF No. 9.
Case 3:26-cv-03170-RSH-DDL Document 17 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 6

2
26-cv-3170-RSH-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. 	BACKGROUND
This is one of over twenty bankruptcy appeals that Rajaee or his wife have taken
from the same Bankruptcy Case, including:
(1) 	No. 25-cv-667-RSH-KSC (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 20, 2025; affirmed
on Oct. 31, 2025)
(2) 	No. 25-cv-777-BJC-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal
withdrawn on Apr. 16, 2025)
(3) 	No. 25-cv-778-BEN-DEB (notice of appeal filed on Mar. 28, 2025; appeal
withdrawn on Apr. 4, 2025)
(4) 	No. 25-cv-2850-RSH-JLB (notice of appeal filed on Sept. 24, 2025; affirmed
on Apr. 23, 2026)
(5) 	No. 25-cv-3480-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed on Oct. 30, 2025; dismissed
on May 21, 2026)
(6) 	No. 25-cv-3260-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed on Nov. 13, 2025; dismissed
on Apr. 23, 2026)
(7) 	No. 25-cv-3506-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Nov. 21, 2025; dismissed on
Apr. 23, 2026)
(8) 	No. 25-cv-3530-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Nov. 26, 2025; dismissed on
Apr. 23, 2026)
(9) 	No. 26-cv-76-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Dec. 23, 2025; dismissed on
Apr. 23, 2026)
(10) 	No. 26-cv-937-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Feb. 3, 2026; affirmed on July
17, 2026)
(11) 	No. 26-cv-2968-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Apr. 13, 2026; dismissed on
Aug. 20, 2026)
(12) 	No. 26-cv-2969-RSH-JLB (notice of appeal filed Apr. 13, 2026; dismissed on
Aug. 20, 2026)
Case 3:26-cv-03170-RSH-DDL Document 17 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 6

3
26-cv-3170-RSH-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(13) 	No. 26-cv-3058-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; dismissed on
Sept. 9, 2026)
(14) 	No. 26-cv-3060-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; dismissed on
Aug. 26, 2026)
(15) 	No. 26-cv-3061-RSH-BJW (notice of appeal filed on May 6, 2026; dismissed
on Oct. 7, 2026)
(16) 	No. 26-cv-3065-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; dismissed on
Oct. 7, 2026)
(17) 	No. 26-cv-3162-RSH-AHG (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; dismissed on
Aug. 26, 2026)
(18) 	No. 26-cv-3165-RSH-AHG (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; dismissed on
Sept. 2, 2026)
(19) 	No. 26-cv-3166-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; dismissed on
Sept. 9, 2026)
(20) 	No. 26-cv-3170-RSH-DDL (notice of appeal filed May 6, 2026; pending)
(21) 	No. 26-cv-3809-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed May 13, 2026; dismissed on
Aug. 18, 2026)
(22) 	No. 26-cv-4863-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed July 24, 2026, dismissed on
Oct. 5, 2026)
(23) 	No. 26-cv-4936-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Aug. 11, 2026, pending)
(24) 	No. 26-cv-5424-RSH-GC (notice of appeal filed Sept. 1, 2026, pending)
To date, none of these appeals has been successful.
Many of the foregoing proceedings involve duplicate appeals, in which Mr. and Ms.
Rajaee each filed, on the same day, identical notices of appeal from the same Bankruptcy
Court order. The instant appeal by Ashkan Rajaee is thus taken from the same Bankruptcy
Court order as Nassim Rajaee’s appeal in Case No. 26-cv-3166. Compare ECF No. 1 with
Case No. 26-cv-3166, ECF No. 1 (separately appealing the same order).
//
Case 3:26-cv-03170-RSH-DDL Document 17 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 6

4
26-cv-3170-RSH-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. 	JURISDICTION
A party may appeal as of right from “final judgments, orders, and decrees” entered
by bankruptcy courts “in cases and proceedings.” See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). “By providing
for appeals from final decisions in bankruptcy ‘proceedings,’ as distinguished from
bankruptcy 	‘cases,’ 	Congress 	made 	‘orders 	in 	bankruptcy 	cases 	. . . 	immediately
appeal[able] if they finally dispose of discrete disputes within the larger [bankruptcy]
case.’” Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 589 U.S. 35, 39 (2020) (alterations in
original) (quoting Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496, 501 (2015)). This is because
“[a] bankruptcy case encompasses numerous ‘individual controversies, many of which
would exist as stand-alone lawsuits but for the bankrupt status of the debtor.’” Id. at 38
(quoting Bullard, 575 U.S. at 501).
In assessing whether an order is “final” for purposes of appealability, the Ninth
Circuit applies “a pragmatic approach.” In re Perl, 811 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2016).
“A bankruptcy court order is considered final ‘where it 1) resolves and seriously affects
substantive rights and 2) finally determines the discrete issue to which it is addressed.’” In
re SK Foods, L.P., 676 F.3d 798, 802 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re AFI Holding, 530 F.3d
832, 836 (9th Cir. 2008)); see also In re Marino, 949 F.3d 483, 487 (9th Cir. 2020) (“An
order in a bankruptcy proceeding is final and thus appealable if it alters the status quo and
fixes the rights and obligations of the parties or alters the legal relationships among the
parties.”) (citation modified).
If a bankruptcy court’s order is interlocutory rather than final, district courts have
limited discretionary appellate jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(2), (3); Fed. R. Bankr.
P. 8004. “[T]he Ninth Circuit has explained that courts should not grant leave to appeal
from an interlocutory order of a bankruptcy judge unless the following requirements are
met: ‘(1) that there be a controlling question of law, (2) that there be substantial grounds
for difference of opinion, and (3) that an immediate appeal may materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation.’” In re Thinkfilm, LLC, No. 12-9795, 2013 WL
654010, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013) (quoting In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d
Case 3:26-cv-03170-RSH-DDL Document 17 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 6

5
26-cv-3170-RSH-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982)); see also Vistam, Inc. v. Flahaut, No. 2:24-cv-4460-SSS, 2024
WL 5480346, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2024) (quoting In re Thinkfilm, 2013 WL 654010,
at *1). “While district courts have discretionary authority to hear interlocutory appeals,
review of interlocutory orders is generally disfavored.” In re Thinkfilm, LLC, 2013 WL
654010, at *1.
The Trustee contends that this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction in this case. ECF
No. 15 at 9-11. Rajaee’s reply brief does not respond to the Trustee’s contention, or assert
that this Court has jurisdiction. Quite the opposite: Rajaee maintains that “[t]he District
Court has not acquired lawful appellate jurisdiction over this appeal.” See ECF No. 16 at
5. Rajaee states, however, that “[i]f this Court determines that it has lawful appellate
jurisdiction over this appeal, ECF 925 must be vacated.” See ECF No. 16 at 22.
The Court agrees that it lacks appellate jurisdiction here, although for a different
reason than those advanced by the Parties. Rajaee appeals from an order denying sanctions
against the Trustee in the course of his bankruptcy case. The Ninth Circuit has stated, in
the context of a bankruptcy appeal, that “[s]anctions orders are interlocutory orders that are
not appealable until final judgment is entered.” In re Markus, 313 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th
Cir. 2002) (citing Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 209 (1999)). The Ninth
Circuit has similarly held that the denial of a motion for Rule 11 sanctions prior to judgment
is a non-final order, explaining that “[a]s the litigation continues and a fuller picture of
opposing counsel’s conduct emerges, the court may decide to impose sanctions based on a
renewed motion . . . or on its own motion,” and that the court “is free to reconsider its
decision to deny sanctions.” McCright v. Santoki, 976 F.2d 568, 569 (9th Cir. 1992). Here,
the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of sanctions did not, with finality, resolve and seriously
affect substantive rights. Nor are any of the grounds that would justify an interlocutory
appeal present. This appeal is therefore subject to dismissal.
III. 	MOTION TO DETERMINE INVALIDITY OF ELECTION
On July 2, 2026, Rajaee filed a filed a motion for an order determining that the
Trustee’s election to proceed with this appeal in district court is invalid, and transferring
Case 3:26-cv-03170-RSH-DDL Document 17 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 6

6
26-cv-3170-RSH-DDL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
this appeal to the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) for the Ninth Circuit. ECF
No. 9 at 17–18. 	This motion is meritless, and the Court has denied this same motion
numerous times in other bankruptcy appeals filed by Rajaee and his wife. There is no
dispute that a party to a bankruptcy appeal may timely elect to have an appeal heard by the
district court rather than a BAP. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8005(a). Mr. Rajaee does not contest
that the Trustee, who is clearly parties to this appeal, timely made such an election. Rajaee’s
argument is that the election is ineffective because the Bankruptcy Court’s order converting
the case to Chapter 7 and appointing a Chapter 7 Trustee was itself invalid. See ECF No. 9
at 9. But Rajaee did not timely appeal the conversion, and this Court has already affirmed
the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of his motion to reconsider the conversion order. See Case
No. 25-cv-667, Dkt. No. 23 (Oct. 31, 2025 order of affirmance).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
The appeal is DISMISSED.
Rajaee’s motion to determine validity of election [ECF No. 9] is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-03170-RSH-DDL Document 17 Filed 10/08/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 6