In Re: Yan Sui v. Richard Marshack

facts,” or “expressly or implicitly seek to challenge any order previously entered”

in various cases filed by Sui and Yang in the Bankruptcy, Superior, or District

Court. Sui and Yang filed a motion in the BAP to reinstate jurisdiction, which the

BAP denied on October 24, 2022.

As an initial matter, the BAP properly transferred the appeal to the district

court based on the Trustee’s statement of election. The Trustee’s election was

made in a separate writing on the appropriate form, and was not “joined with any

2 other material,” In re Hupp, 383 B.R. 476, 480 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008). Yang and

Sui do not argue that the substance of their appeal of the fees order complied with

the district court’s pre-filing review order, or that the district court improperly

refused to file it.

To the extent that Sui and Yang challenge the sale of the property, the appeal

is an improper collateral attack on a final order.1 “The collateral attack doctrine

precludes litigants from collaterally attacking the judgments of other courts.” Rein

v. Providian Fin. Corp., 270 F.3d 895, 902 (9th Cir. 2001). Sui and Yang have

continued to challenge the bankruptcy court’s order granting the sale…