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 of the

residence, which has been resolved by both the BAP and this court. Further, any

challenge to the reasonableness of the bankruptcy court’s compensation award is

not properly before this court. See Nat’l Am. Ins. Co. of Cal. v. Certain

Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 93 F.3d 529, 540 (9th Cir. 1995) (this court does

not have jurisdiction over “[o]rders that could not have affected the outcome, i.e.,

orders not material to the judgment”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 158 (establishing

1 By challenging the sale of the residence, Sui also violates this court’s pre-filing review order against him in Case Number 17-80091, which requires compliance with Ninth Circuit and Federal Rules, a notice regarding the applicability of the pre-filing review order, and a statement that issues raised on appeal have not been previously raised.

3 jurisdiction in the BAP and district courts over bankruptcy court orders).2

AFFIRMED.

2 We decline Appellees’ request to impose discretionary sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. See McConnell v. Critchlow, 661 F.2d 116, 118 (9th Cir. 1981) (“This court has discretion to award damages and single or double costs as a sanction against bringing a frivolous appeal.”).

4