United States District Court, D. Nevada
YOUSIF H. HALLOUM, Appellant,
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al., Appellees.
from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Nevada Bk No. 16-16815-BTB
M. Navarro, District Judge United States District Court
before the Court is the bankruptcy appeal of Yousif H.
Halloum v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., No.
2:18-cv-01555. Appellant Yousif H. Halloum
(“Appellant”) filed an Opening Brief, (ECF No.
16), to which Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells
Fargo”) filed an Answering Brief, (ECF No. 22).
pending before the Court are the following fully briefed
Motions: Appellant's Motion to Reconsider, (ECF No. 20),
and Wells Fargo's Motion for Sanctions, (ECF No. 23).
reasons discussed herein, the Court AFFIRMS
the underlying bankruptcy court order,
DENIES Appellant's Motion to Reconsider,
GRANTS Wells Fargo's Motion for
appeal arises from the bankruptcy court's denial of
Appellant's motion to permit his tardy filing of a
disclosure statement, plan of reorganization, and appraisal
(the “Motion to Extend Time”). (See
Notice of Appeal at 3, ECF No. 1). Appellant filed the
underlying voluntary Chapter 11 petition in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada (the
“bankruptcy court”) seeking relief with respect
to real property in California. (In re Halloum, No.
16-16815-BTB (Bankr. D. Nev. Dec. 29, 2016) (Ch. 11 Pet., ECF
No. 1)); (See Op. Br. at 1-2).
to the instant appeal, the bankruptcy court granted Wells
Fargo's motion for relief from the automatic stay,
finding Appellant failed to oppose the motion and concluding
Wells Fargo successfully demonstrated good cause for relief.
(See Hr'g Tr. 4:16-5:8, In re Halloum,
ECF No. 62). Appellant subsequently moved to substitute
himself in place of his counsel, which the bankruptcy court
granted. (See Order, In re Halloum, ECF No.
pro se, Appellant filed a motion with the bankruptcy court
seeking reconsideration of the order lifting the stay,
contending that his prior counsel's negligence was to
blame for the adverse ruling. (See Mot. to
Recons., In re Halloum, ECF No. 104). Appellant also
filed his Motion to Extend Time, requesting permission to
file a tardy disclosure statement, plan of organization, and
appraisal. (See Mot., In re Halloum, ECF
No. 77). Following a hearing, the bankruptcy court denied
respect to the motion to reconsider, the bankruptcy court
noted that Appellant's motion focused solely on his prior
counsel's lack of diligence. (See Hr'g Tr.
8:12-9:6, In re Halloum, ECF No. 97). Because the
motion failed to articulate any error in the court's
determination that Wells Fargo was entitled to relief on the
merits, the Court found reconsideration unwarranted.
(Id. 8:12-9:6). As to the Motion to Extend Time, the
bankruptcy court stated that Appellant was under the
misapprehension that he missed a deadline to file a
disclosure statement, plan of reorganization, and appraisal.
(Id. 7:12-8:5). Concluding that nothing precluded
Appellant from meeting the yet-to-be-expired deadline, the
bankruptcy court denied Appellant's Motion, issuing a
written order on August 15, 2018. (Id. 8:6-11).
next day, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in which he
elected to have this Court, rather than the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel hear his appeal. (See
Notice of Appeal at 2, ECF No. 1). The Notice of Appeal
identifies the bankruptcy court's order denying
Appellant's Motion to Extend Time as the subject of this
this Court's order setting forth an appellate briefing
schedule, (ECF No. 5), Appellant moved this Court to transfer
venue, (ECF No. 7), which the Court denied upon finding it
was procedurally improper and premised upon an inapplicable
legal standard. (See Order 2:19-3:7, ECF No. 15).
Prior to this Court's denial, Appellant correspondingly
moved the bankruptcy court to transfer venue, which the court
denied following a hearing. (See In re Halloum, ECF
Nos. 132, 142). Appellant appealed that ruling, which is
currently pending before Judge Gordon in No. 2:19-cv-00037.
Fargo, for its part, filed the instant Motion for Sanctions,
asserting that the arguments Appellant puts forth are
irrelevant and otherwise outside the scope of this appeal.
(Mot. for Sanctions, ECF No. 23). Consequently, Wells Fargo
requests an order deeming this appeal frivolous and
sanctioning Appellant by awarding attorneys' fees to
Wells Fargo. (Id.).