Pajarillo v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al

Filing 63

ORDER that the Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 40 is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 05/23/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7

FIDEL H. PAJARILLO,

8

Debtor.

9
Case No. 2:13-cv-01935-RJC
Adv. No. 13-ap-1053-BAM
Bankr. No. 13-bk-12137-BAM

FIDEL H. PAJARILLO,

10
Appellant,

11

ORDER

vs.

12
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC et al.,

13
Appellees.

14
15
16

Debtor–Appellant Fidel Pajarillo (“Appellant”) filed the underlying adversary proceeding

17

to quiet title to certain real property in Las Vegas. Several Appellees moved to dismiss because

18

the property had been sold at an HOA foreclosure sale, such that Plaintiff could assert no further

19

interest in the property. The bankruptcy judge granted the motion after a hearing. In re Pajarillo,

20

No. 13-ap-1053-BAM, ECF No. 52 (Sept. 9, 2013) (order granting motion to dismiss). Appellant

21

appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”), but one or more Appellees requested the

22

present forum, so the BAP transferred the appeal here. Appellant filed no opening brief by

23

November 8, 2013, as the BAP had ordered. Nor did he file an opening brief by December 7,

24

2013, in accordance with the request for extension of time he improperly filed in the underlying

1 of 3

1

bankruptcy case. Nor did he file an opening brief by January 8, 2014, in accordance with the

2

second request for extension of time he again improperly filed in the underlying bankruptcy case.

3

Appellees moved to dismiss the appeal. Appellant did not timely respond, and the Court granted

4

the motion for failure to prosecute the appeal. (Order, ECF No. 8.) See Local. R. Bankr. P.

5

8070(a). Appellant then moved the Court to reconsider, and the Court denied the motion. (Order,

6

ECF No. 21.)
Appellant appealed the Court’s dismissal of his bankruptcy appeal to the Ninth Circuit,

7
8

which vacated and remanded the Court’s order. (Memo. Op., ECF No. 27.) The Ninth Circuit

9

found the Court abused its discretion by dismissing the bankruptcy appeal for failure to prosecute

10

without explicitly considering alternative sanctions.
With the bankruptcy appeal now on remand, Appellees Bank of America, N.A.,

11
12

ReconTrust Company, N.A., and BAC Home Loans Servicing, Inc. (hereinafter collectively “the

13

Bank of America Defendants”) move to be dismissed from this litigation. (Mot. Dismiss, ECF

14

No. 40.) The Court grants the motion. The Bank of America Defendants were previously

15

dismissed with prejudice by the bankruptcy court. In re Pajarillo, No. 13-ap-1053-BAM, ECF

16

No. 38 (July 26, 2013) (order granting motion to dismiss). Appellant did not appeal this

17

dismissal order. See Notice of Transfer of Appeal, ECF No. 1 at 12 (indicating that Appellant

18

appealed only Order #52 on the adversary docket, which was entered on September 9, 2013).

19

Furthermore, Appellant concedes that the Bank of America Defendants have no interest in the

20

subject property at 4856 La Cumbre Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89147. (Resp., ECF No. 45 at 3.)

21

The La Cumbre Drive property is the only property at issue in this proceeding. In re Pajarillo,

22

No. 13-ap-1053-BAM, ECF No. 1 at 2–3 (Mar. 28, 2013) (complaint).

23

///

24

///

2 of 3

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED WITH
PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: This 23rd day of May, 2017.
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

3 of 3