Pajarillo v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 21

ORDER Denying 9 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/16/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
FIDEL H. PAJARILLO,
9
Debtor.
10
11

FIDEL H. PAJARILLO,

12
13
14
15

Appellant,
vs.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC et al.,
Appellees.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:13-cv-01935-RCJ
Adv. No. 13-ap-1053-BAM
Bankr. No. 13-bk-12137-BAM
ORDER

16
17

Debtor–Appellant Fidel H. Pajarillo filed the present adversary proceeding to quiet title

18

real property in Las Vegas. Several Appellees moved to dismiss because the property had been

19

sold at an HOA foreclosure sale, such that Plaintiff could assert no further interest in the

20

property. The bankruptcy judge granted the motion after a hearing. Appellant appealed to the

21

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”), but one or more Appellees requested the present forum, so

22

the BAP transferred the appeal here. Appellant filed no opening brief by November 8, 2013, as

23

the BAP had ordered. Nor did he file an opening brief by December 7, 2013, in accordance with

24

the request for extension of time he improperly filed in the underlying bankruptcy case. Nor did

25

he file an opening brief by January 8, 2014, in accordance with the second request for extension

1

of time he again improperly filed in the underlying bankruptcy case. Appellees moved to dismiss

2

the appeal. Appellant did not timely respond, and the Court granted the motion for failure to

3

prosecute the appeal. See Local. R. Bankr. P. 8070(a).

4

Appellant has field a Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 9). The Court interprets the motion

5

as a motion for a rehearing under Bankruptcy Rule 8015. The motion was filed within fourteen

6

days of the order, and it is therefore timely. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8015.

7

First, Plaintiff objects to the Court’s characterization of the Adversary Complaint as one

8

for quiet title. Appellant argues that his claim was only for declaratory judgment as to all parties’

9

interests in the relevant real property. But a declaratory judgment action seeking that kind of

10

declaration is by definition a quiet title action. See Kress v. Corey, 189 P.2d 352, 364 (Nev.

11

1948) (“For many years prior to the adoption of [declaratory judgment] statutes courts have

12

nonetheless been rendering declaratory judgments, that is, the declaration of the pre-existing

13

rights of the litigants without any coercive decree, in such cases as quiet title suits . . . .”). The

14

only difference is the title, not the substance, of the action.

15

Second and third, Plaintiff argues that the adversary complaint was non-core. Plaintiff is

16

clearly correct that a quiet title action is non-core, because it is neither a cause of action created

17

by the Bankruptcy Code nor an administrative matter arising only in bankruptcy. See In re

18

Eastport Assocs., 935 F.2d 1071, 1076–77 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90,

19

9697 (5th Cir. 1987)). If the Court were to address the case on the merits, therefore, it would

20

have to review all issues of law and fact de novo, because the Bankruptcy Court cannot have

21

issued a final judgment on a non-core claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). But the appeal, which

22

was dismissed for failure to prosecute, and Plaintiff makes no argument why the appeal should

23

not have been dismissed for failure to prosecute.

24

///

25

///
Page 2 of 3

1

CONCLUSION

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated this 5th day of June, 2014.
Dated this 16th day of June, 2014.
5
6

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3 of 3