USA V. ALLAHYARI, No. 22-35422 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
The case involves the United States government's action to reduce federal tax liens to judgment and foreclose on real property. The government sought to foreclose on tax liens against a property owned by Komron Allahyari. Shaun Allahyari, Komron's father, was named as an additional defendant due to his interest in the property through two deeds of trust. The district court found that the government was entitled to foreclose on the tax liens and sell the property. However, the court did not have sufficient information to enter an order for judicial sale and ordered the parties to submit a Joint Status Report. Shaun Allahyari filed an appeal before the parties submitted the Joint Status Report and stipulated to the value of the property to be sold.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court explained that the district court's order was not final because it did not have sufficient information to enter an order for judicial sale. The court also clarified that for a decree of sale in a foreclosure suit to be considered a final decree for purposes of an appeal, it must settle all of the rights of the parties and leave nothing to be done but to make the sale and pay out the proceeds. Because that standard was not met in this case, there still was no final judgment. The court therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Court Description: Tax. The panel dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, in an action by the government to reduce federal tax liens to judgment and foreclose on real property, because there was no final decision to appeal.
The order that taxpayer sought to appeal found that the government was entitled to foreclose on the tax liens, and to the sale of certain real property. However, the order was not final because the district court did not have sufficient information to enter an order for judicial sale. Instead, the district court ordered the parties to submit a Joint Status Report. Taxpayer filed his notice of appeal before the parties submitted the Joint Status Report and stipulated to the value of the property to be sold. The district court still has not entered an order for judicial sale.
Taxpayer contended that the district court’s subsequent entry of an order resolving the value of the property ripened the premature notice of appeal into an effective appeal of what he contended was the then-final judgment of foreclosure. The panel first explained that, although a premature notice of appeal “filed after the court announces a decision or order—but before the entry of the judgment or order—is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry,” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2), this rule was inapplicable here. The rule was intended to protect unskilled litigants from failing to timely file a notice of appeal from what they reasonably believe to be a final judgment, such as where the only steps that remain to produce a final decision are essentially ministerial tasks. This rule could not be stretched to cover a premature notice of appeal directed at an order that explicitly deferred resolution of the quantification of a monetary award and that called for briefing from the parties on that issue.
Taxpayer’s premature notice of appeal thus would not have been effective to appeal any later final judgment if indeed there were one here. But the panel further held that, in any event, Taxpayer was wrong in contending that there was now a final judgment. The panel clarified that, for a decree of sale in a foreclosure suit to be considered a final decree for purposes of an appeal, it must settle all of the rights of the parties and leave nothing to be done but to make the sale and pay out the proceeds. Because that standard was not met in this case, there still was no final judgment. The panel therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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.