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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?