Youri Beitdashtoo v. Nationwide Registry & Security, No. 18-1803 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1803 YOURI BEITDASHTOO, Debtor - Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE REGISTRY & SECURITY, LTD, Creditor - Appellee, and DONALD F. KING, Trustee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00183-LMB-MSN) Submitted: December 31, 2018 Decided: January 9, 2019 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel M. Press, CHUNG & PRESS, P.C., McLean, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert L. Vaughn, Jr., O’CONNOR & VAUGHN, LLC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Youri Beitdashtoo appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order granting his motion to reopen his bankruptcy proceedings and granting in part, and denying in part, his motion for sanctions against Nationwide Registry & Security, Ltd. (“NRS”). We have reviewed the record included on appeal as well as the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Beitdashtoo v. Nationwide Registry & Sec. Ltd., No. 1:18-cv-00183LMB-MSN (E.D. Va., June 13, 2018). To the extent that NRS seeks to challenge parts of the bankruptcy court’s ruling, its failure to file a cross-appeal deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider those claims. See Fed. R. App. P. 3, 4; Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 244–45 (2008) (“[A]n appellate court may not alter a judgment to benefit a nonappealing party. . . . [I]t takes a cross-appeal to justify a remedy in favor of an appellee.” (citation omitted)). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.