TJ PLAZA, LLC V. U.S. BANK, No. 15-16968 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: TJ PLAZA, LLC, No. 15-16968 Debtor, ______________________________ D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02226-GMN TJ PLAZA, LLC; DSWC, INC., MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. BANK NA, as Trustee on behalf of the Registered Holders of Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-C6, Defendant-Appellee. In re: TJ PLAZA, LLC, No. 15-16969 Debtor, ______________________________ D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02227-GMN TJ PLAZA, LLC; DSWC, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. U.S. BANK NA, as Trustee on behalf of the Registered Holders of Wachovia Bank Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-C6, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted April 18, 2017** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FERNANDEZ and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. We dismiss these consolidated appeals because the appellants were the prevailing parties in the district court, and there is nothing in the judgment that can be reformed on appeal. “A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.” United States v. Good Samaritan Church, 29 F.3d 487, 488 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Elec. Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939)). There is no exception to the general rule here because “[d]eterminations which are immaterial to the judgment below have no ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 preclusive effect on subsequent litigation, especially if they cannot be appealed” and because, “[t]o the extent that the district court order was not favorable to appellants, it does not bind them in subsequent litigation.” Id. at 489. These consolidated appeals are DISMISSED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
