Court Opinion

ID: 9882262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 17:00:53.2728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:20.336534
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            OCT 5 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST                    No.    20-16550
COMPANY, as Trustee for FFMLT Trust
2005-FF8, Mortgage Pass-Through                 D.C. No.
Certificates, Series 2005-FF8,                  2:18-cv-00597-JCM-VCF

             Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
 v.

SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC,

             Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                    James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

                      Argued and Submitted October 2, 2023
                               Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: RAWLINSON and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,** District
Judge.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
            The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
      Plaintiff-Appellant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for

FFMLT Trust 2005-FF8, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-FF8 (“the

Bank”), brought this appeal from a district court order granting the Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion of Defendant-Appellee SFR Investments Pool 1,

LLC’s (“SFR”). The order, however, did not finally dispose of SFR’s counterclaim.

The Bank moved for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim, but the district

court denied the motion. The district court did not certify its order as a final judgment

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

      With exceptions not pertinent here, we only have jurisdiction over appeals from

final decisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “[A] final decision is a decision by the District

Court that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but

execute the judgment.” United States v. Alvarez-Moreno, 657 F.3d 896, 899 (9th Cir.

2011) (quoting Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989) (cleaned

up)). Because SFR’s counterclaim is still pending in the district court, the order on

appeal is not a final decision, and we lack jurisdiction. See id. The appeal is therefore

DISMISSED.

                                           2