In re: TJ PLAZA, LLC v. U.s. Bank Na, as Trustee on behalf of the Registered Holders of Wachovia Bank…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: TJ PLAZA, LLC,
Debtor,
______________________________
TJ PLAZA, LLC; DSWC, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
U.S. BANK NA, as Trustee on behalf of
the Registered Holders of Wachovia Bank
Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2003-C6,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-16968
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02226-GMN
MEMORANDUM*
In re: TJ PLAZA, LLC,
Debtor,
______________________________
TJ PLAZA, LLC; DSWC, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
No. 15-16969
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02227-GMN
FILED
APR 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

U.S. BANK NA, as Trustee on behalf of
the Registered Holders of Wachovia Bank
Commercial Mortgage Trust, Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,
Series 2003-C6,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 18, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FERNANDEZ and MURGUIA, Circuit
Judges.
We dismiss these consolidated appeals because the appellants were the
prevailing parties in the district court, and there is nothing in the judgment that can
be reformed on appeal. “A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his
favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which
are not necessary to support the decree.” United States v. Good Samaritan Church,
29 F.3d 487, 488 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Elec. Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts
Co., 307 U.S. 241, 242 (1939)). There is no exception to the general rule here
because “[d]eterminations which are immaterial to the judgment below have no
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

preclusive effect on subsequent litigation, especially if they cannot be appealed”
and because, “[t]o the extent that the district court order was not favorable to
appellants, it does not bind them in subsequent litigation.” Id. at 489.
These consolidated appeals are DISMISSED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --