Court Opinion

ID: 9954056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 17:01:09.339981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:46.334584
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                       FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     MAR 25 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: YAN SUI,                                    No.   22-60054

                   Debtor.                         BAP No. 22-1189

------------------------------
                                                   MEMORANDUM*
YAN SUI; PEI-YU YANG,

                   Appellants,

  v.

RICHARD A. MARSHACK, Chapter 7
Trustee; MARSHACK HAYS LLP;
GOODRICH LAW CORPORATION;
DENTONS US, LLP,

                   Appellees.

                             Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
                              Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
                 Gan, Faris, and Spraker, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

                                 Submitted March 20, 2024**
                                  San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

       *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Appellants Yan Sui and Pei-Yu Yang appeal pro se an order from the

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit (BAP) denying their motion to

“reinstate” jurisdiction after the district court declined to file a transferred appeal.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). Reviewing decisions of the BAP

de novo, see In re Hutchinson, 15 F.4th 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

      Sui and Yang initially appealed the bankruptcy court’s order granting

Appellees’ Chapter 7 Trustee Richard A. Marshack, Marshack Hays LLP,

Goodrich Law Corporation, and Dentons US LLP’s (collectively, Appellees)

motions for compensation to the BAP. The Trustee elected to have the appeal

heard by the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §158(c)(1), and the BAP

transferred the appeal. The district court declined to file the appeal based on a pre-

filing review order that, inter alia, ordered the clerk of that court to reject any

filings from Sui and Yang that either “arise from the same nucleus of operative

facts,” or “expressly or implicitly seek to challenge any order previously entered”

in various cases filed by Sui and Yang in the Bankruptcy, Superior, or District

Court. Sui and Yang filed a motion in the BAP to reinstate jurisdiction, which the

BAP denied on October 24, 2022.

      As an initial matter, the BAP properly transferred the appeal to the district

court based on the Trustee’s statement of election. The Trustee’s election was

made in a separate writing on the appropriate form, and was not “joined with any

                                            2
other material,” In re Hupp, 383 B.R. 476, 480 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008). Yang and

Sui do not argue that the substance of their appeal of the fees order complied with

the district court’s pre-filing review order, or that the district court improperly

refused to file it.

       To the extent that Sui and Yang challenge the sale of the property, the appeal

is an improper collateral attack on a final order.1 “The collateral attack doctrine

precludes litigants from collaterally attacking the judgments of other courts.” Rein

v. Providian Fin. Corp., 270 F.3d 895, 902 (9th Cir. 2001). Sui and Yang have

continued to challenge the bankruptcy court’s order granting the sale of the

residence, which has been resolved by both the BAP and this court. Further, any

challenge to the reasonableness of the bankruptcy court’s compensation award is

not properly before this court. See Nat’l Am. Ins. Co. of Cal. v. Certain

Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 93 F.3d 529, 540 (9th Cir. 1995) (this court does

not have jurisdiction over “[o]rders that could not have affected the outcome, i.e.,

orders not material to the judgment”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 158 (establishing

1
  By challenging the sale of the residence, Sui also violates this court’s pre-filing
review order against him in Case Number 17-80091, which requires compliance
with Ninth Circuit and Federal Rules, a notice regarding the applicability of the
pre-filing review order, and a statement that issues raised on appeal have not been
previously raised.

                                           3
jurisdiction in the BAP and district courts over bankruptcy court orders).2

      AFFIRMED.

2
 We decline Appellees’ request to impose discretionary sanctions under Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. See McConnell v. Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116, 118
(9th Cir. 1981) (“This court has discretion to award damages and single or double
costs as a sanction against bringing a frivolous appeal.”).

                                         4