Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0523-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: John Lee CHRISTAKIS, Debtor. John Lee Christakis, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. Bank NA, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-15346
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 21, 2017
    John Lee Christakis, Pro Se
    Philip J. Giles, Attorney, Pite Duncan, LLP, San Diego, CA, Michael Curran, Maynard Cronin Erickson Curran & Reiter, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Ap-pellee
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John Lee Christakis appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying Christak-is’s appeal of a bankruptcy court order denying his motion for relief-under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the bankruptcy court’s order denying Christakis’s Rule 60(b) motion was not a final, appealable order. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204 F.3d 920, 930 (9th Cir. 2000) (order declining to entertain or grant a Rule 60(b) motion is a procedural ruling and not a final determination on the merits); see also Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot Springs), 339 F.3d 782, 787-88 (9th Cir. 2003) (court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals in bankruptcy cases).

Contrary to Christakis’s argument, his prior notice of appeal divested the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction to entertain his Rule 60(b) motion, because both the appeal and the Rule 60 motion concerned the claim of U.S. Bank N.A. against a specific parcel of real property. See Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997) (filing of a notice of appeal divests court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal).

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.