DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST C V. SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC, No. 20-16550 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 5 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee for FFMLT Trust 2005-FF8, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-FF8, No. 20-16550 D.C. No. 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
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.
