[00:00:01] Speaker 01:
Inre Roda, Appellant Aparna Vasisht Roda appearing pro se, Anastasia Billing appearing for appellee.

[00:00:13] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honor.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
I hope you all had a nice week, and I will keep this short.

[00:00:19] Speaker 00:
Has my time started?

[00:00:20] Speaker 03:
Could we turn up the volume a little bit?

[00:00:22] Speaker 03:
It's a little bit soft.

[00:00:24] Speaker 03:
Maybe we can't.

[00:00:32] Speaker 03:
I've turned it up, Judge.

[00:00:35] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:00:36] Speaker 03:
Go ahead, please.

[00:00:38] Speaker 00:
OK.

[00:00:39] Speaker 00:
So in this case, I'm asking the court to grant me an automatic stay at Docket 39, pages 45 to 51, as was granted to Rudy Giuliani.

[00:00:52] Speaker 00:
This is because the Ninth Circuit, in a related case, is considering whether Utah has jurisdiction or whether Utah should be dismissed.

[00:01:02] Speaker 00:
As a result of that, I'm asking the court to stay bankruptcy or grant me the automatic stay as was granted to Rudy Giuliani.

[00:01:12] Speaker 00:
I'd like to reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.

[00:01:15] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:01:15] Speaker 02:
I have a question, though.

[00:01:17] Speaker 02:
This is Judge Corbett.

[00:01:18] Speaker 02:
Isn't the issue before us whether or not the order denying reconsideration was appropriate?

[00:01:30] Speaker 00:
Potentially.

[00:01:31] Speaker 00:
That is true, but I think the reconsideration was to reopen the case.

[00:01:37] Speaker 00:
And the way I understand the procedure, what happened is that I filed the case, they dismissed it in February saying that I didn't file certain schedules.

[00:01:46] Speaker 00:
Once they did that, HMS moved to remove the automatic state to which I couldn't file a response.

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
called the trial court and they said I had to set up a motion to reconsider that dismissal.

[00:02:01] Speaker 00:
So that's what I did.

[00:02:03] Speaker 00:
That's the times I got.

[00:02:05] Speaker 00:
So I think that's the reconsideration for the denial of the stay.

[00:02:11] Speaker 00:
I'm a hundred percent not sure what happened in the procedure, but my point is that as soon as I opened the case, I shouldn't have been asked to file the schedules because of the related cases and their posture.

[00:02:24] Speaker 00:
HMS is fully aware that these issues are still pending.

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
And still the trial court went ahead and threw out my case without giving me the opportunity to even respond.

[00:02:35] Speaker 00:
And then similarly for the automatic stay, I sent my paperwork in and I wasn't heard on my paperwork either.

[00:02:41] Speaker 00:
So the court only heard HMS.

[00:02:44] Speaker 00:
So at this point, whichever motion it is, I need the trial court to grant me the automatic stay

[00:02:52] Speaker 00:
till the Ninth Circuit has figured out whether Utah has jurisdiction.

[00:02:56] Speaker 00:
So this matter may not even require any further litigation.

[00:03:03] Speaker 03:
All right, thank you.

[00:03:05] Speaker 03:
Miss Billy, please go ahead.

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:03:08] Speaker 01:
May it please the court, Anastasia Billy of Sheppard Mullen, Richter & Hampton on behalf of Appellee Howell Management Services.

[00:03:17] Speaker 01:
Your Honors, the difficult thing about this case is that it's

[00:03:21] Speaker 01:
not entirely about this case, as is obvious from all of the briefs that have been filed, including all of the supplemental briefs that have been filed, even after the normal briefing was done.

[00:03:31] Speaker 01:
This case is actually really about a judgment that was obtained by Howell Management Services against the appellant in Utah.

[00:03:41] Speaker 01:
And so most of the focus of this case has been on the relief that appellant would like to obtain from that judgment and her

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
request for an opportunity to essentially retry portions of that case.

[00:03:56] Speaker 01:
Even in her reply brief in this appeal, she notes that the key issue is whether she can use this case, the case before the panel, to address the Utah case.

[00:04:09] Speaker 02:
Counsel, let me ask the question I asked the appellant right off.

[00:04:14] Speaker 02:
But aren't we really looking at here the issue of whether or not

[00:04:19] Speaker 02:
the standards for reconsideration were met.

[00:04:25] Speaker 02:
We don't need to look at what happened in Utah.

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
Absolutely and that was essentially the point that I was making and you just cut right to the chase.

[00:04:35] Speaker 01:
That case isn't before this court and this court has no jurisdiction to rule on any of those issues anyway.

[00:04:41] Speaker 01:
The key is, as you said, whether the court's denial of her request for reconsideration of the dismissal of the bankruptcy case was an appropriate decision.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
And that decision should be affirmed because there was no abuse of discretion by the bankruptcy court.

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
The bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standard, which is Rule 60B.

[00:05:05] Speaker 01:
Because the time to appeal the underlying dismissal order had long passed,

[00:05:09] Speaker 01:
It's clear from the case law that Rule 60B is the applicable standard.

[00:05:14] Speaker 01:
And so, when the court evaluated those factors, the only question becomes, were its findings illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that might be drawn from the facts in the record?

[00:05:27] Speaker 01:
That is not the case here.

[00:05:30] Speaker 01:
The court's ruling was clearly correct and clearly supported by the record.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
Appellant has not shown that she's entitled to relief under any of the factors under 60B.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
There are obviously six parts.

[00:05:45] Speaker 01:
I'm not going to focus on some of them because some of them are fairly apparently inapplicable here.

[00:05:49] Speaker 01:
So subsections two, three and five, I don't think there's even been an argument made as to why those should apply.

[00:05:58] Speaker 01:
So I'm going to focus my attention on subsections one and four.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
Subsection one is a subsection that says relief can be granted based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
None of those things are present in this case.

[00:06:17] Speaker 01:
In this case, the dismissal order was entered because the appellant didn't file her schedules.

[00:06:23] Speaker 01:
And what's become incredibly clear, both at the bankruptcy court level and continuing in this court's appeal,

[00:06:31] Speaker 01:
is that that choice was intentional.

[00:06:35] Speaker 01:
In fact, the appellant just told the court again that she should not have been asked to file schedules.

[00:06:43] Speaker 01:
In our brief, we pointed out a number of examples of where she said this in her briefing.

[00:06:47] Speaker 01:
She said it again in the reply brief that she does not need to file her schedules

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
I could give you numerous sites to that, at least pages seven, nine, and 11 of her reply brief, all state the same thing.

[00:07:03] Speaker 01:
She does, for the first time in her reply, say that she had difficulty getting things filed or getting them filed on time.

[00:07:10] Speaker 01:
There are several problems with that.

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
The first is that that was never raised before and there's no indication of that in the record.

[00:07:17] Speaker 01:
In fact, appellant managed to file this appeal

[00:07:22] Speaker 01:
four days after the court's ruling denying her motion for reconsideration was entered.

[00:07:29] Speaker 01:
She could have appealed then.

[00:07:31] Speaker 01:
She didn't.

[00:07:34] Speaker 01:
This is also completely inconsistent with her continued assertion that she does not have to file her schedules, that she does not need to file her schedules, and that she should not be forced to file her schedules.

[00:07:46] Speaker 01:
There can't be mistake, there can't be inadvertence, there can't be excusable neglect when the reason for that dismissal is a reason that she chose on purpose.

[00:07:56] Speaker 01:
The Latchaw case is specifically on point for this noting that parties should be bound and should be accountable for their deliberate actions and that rule 60B1 is not intended to remedy the effects of litigation decisions.

[00:08:14] Speaker 01:
The next applicable subsection

[00:08:16] Speaker 01:
it potentially is subsection four.

[00:08:19] Speaker 01:
Subsection four raises the issue of due process.

[00:08:27] Speaker 01:
There is a case that's very, very similar to this one, the tenant case, which is addressed in our brief.

[00:08:34] Speaker 01:
It notes that in a situation like this where the debtor did not file all of the required schedules, statement of financial affairs, and so forth at the time the petition was filed,

[00:08:45] Speaker 01:
The court then gave notice indicating that if those were not timely filed within an additional period of time, the case would be dismissed.

[00:08:54] Speaker 01:
The debtor did not file the required filings in that time period and the court responded by dismissing the case.

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
The debtor then appealed and the BAP held that due process requirements were satisfied in that case even without a specific hearing on point because

[00:09:13] Speaker 01:
The notice and opportunity was tailored to the circumstances at issue there.

[00:09:17] Speaker 01:
They're really very similar to the circumstances at issue here.

[00:09:21] Speaker 01:
Appellant did not file the schedules and statement of affairs at the time that she filed her case.

[00:09:26] Speaker 01:
The court sent out notice telling her you need to file these items and giving her a specific deadline.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
She didn't meet the deadline and the court dismissed the case.

[00:09:36] Speaker 01:
The requirements of due process were in fact met.

[00:09:42] Speaker 01:
I think the other important thing to note in this case is that this is not a typical pro se litigant.

[00:09:50] Speaker 01:
This is a litigant who's filed numerous cases in numerous different courts.

[00:09:56] Speaker 01:
She's filed numerous appeals in numerous different courts all the way up to petitioning for it to be heard by the United States Supreme Court on multiple occasions.

[00:10:07] Speaker 01:
Since I know some of that's clear from the record from the pleadings that she's attached to a lot of her filings, but some of it's not as clear in the record.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
I'll give the court one very specific example.

[00:10:17] Speaker 01:
The Utah judgment that she put into the record and which we also have included in our excerpts.

[00:10:23] Speaker 01:
If you look at ER page 187, that court noted in September of 2023 that the appellant had already filed 14 lawsuits, arbitration cases and administrative matters.

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
and 31 appeals.

[00:10:41] Speaker 01:
The court can tell from some of the other findings in this case that that number has just continued to go up over time.

[00:10:46] Speaker 01:
So this is an appellant who has extensive experience with the litigation process.

[00:10:52] Speaker 01:
She's also had counsel from time to time in various cases.

[00:10:55] Speaker 01:
So this isn't someone who doesn't have access to counsel.

[00:11:00] Speaker 01:
Finally, I think it's important to note that even pro se litigants are bound by the same rules of procedure as everyone else.

[00:11:08] Speaker 01:
And here, those rules were not followed.

[00:11:10] Speaker 01:
And with that, I would just ask if the court has any additional questions.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
Questions?

[00:11:24] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:11:25] Speaker 03:
Thanks.

[00:11:25] Speaker 03:
We have no questions.

[00:11:26] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:11:27] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:11:28] Speaker 03:
OK, it's back to the appellant.

[00:11:31] Speaker 03:
Ma'am, please go ahead.

[00:11:33] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, the attorney is wrong.

[00:11:36] Speaker 00:
First, I've actually filed the schedules.

[00:11:38] Speaker 00:
I was not given a time by I must follow the schedules.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
I've actually filed the schedules.

[00:11:44] Speaker 00:
And if I'm given a two-page brief, I can update the court with the docket entries.

[00:11:50] Speaker 00:
Moreover, before the court heard the reconsideration motion, I had already set up a motion at

[00:11:57] Speaker 00:
docket 85 at the trial court, but which was for October 28, 2024, where I wanted the court to hear 11 USC 558.

[00:12:11] Speaker 00:
As far as I know, you have to give a certain time period before you move to recoup.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
As to the, I think I have grounds for relief under 60B as very nicely, you know, provided by the attorney.

[00:12:25] Speaker 00:
I really gratefully appreciate her.

[00:12:27] Speaker 00:
This is because I made a lot of mistakes in filing.

[00:12:30] Speaker 00:
And if you notice the docket, it says notice of deficiency, notice of deficiency, notice of mistake.

[00:12:37] Speaker 00:
And this is because each paper had to be wet signed.

[00:12:40] Speaker 00:
And then when I sent it to the process server, she also had to wet sign, which was completely different than any other court that I have been in.

[00:12:48] Speaker 00:
As to my other appeals and whatever have you, that's the whole point.

[00:12:54] Speaker 00:
This case is not over.

[00:12:56] Speaker 00:
Utah is missing rulings on the merits.

[00:12:59] Speaker 00:
I was not allowed to participate.

[00:13:00] Speaker 00:
I mean, I consider this a luxury, a huge privilege that I got to meet three esteemed judges from different states.

[00:13:07] Speaker 00:
If I could not meet the judge, they did not let me file a first response to the alleged defamation is privileged, is covered under California 47, 47.1A.

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
I've reported sexual harassment.

[00:13:21] Speaker 00:
I'm unable to get hurt in Utah.

[00:13:23] Speaker 00:
As to the council, I've had patchy service if the court can grant me $250,000 a year.

[00:13:30] Speaker 00:
My former counsel, Ward Hendricks, is willing to come on and pursue the statements.

[00:13:37] Speaker 00:
Howell stole from me, Chris Howell stole from me, because when they filed the case in November 2017, they owe me $30,000 under 1.3.3 C&D.

[00:13:48] Speaker 00:
they owe me $728,000 for the 416 students they've already conceded.

[00:13:55] Speaker 00:
I'm owed that money under 11 USC 558 based on the fact that I also moved for a fully brief motion because one of the things that happened is that I moved to set aside the stay, but then I didn't provide notice.

[00:14:12] Speaker 00:
So I finally did the one motion right for October 28th,

[00:14:18] Speaker 00:
2024 at docket 88, I believe.

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
And then it was taken off calendar because of the reconsideration hearing.

[00:14:25] Speaker 00:
And I told the judge, hey, judge, can you please consider that motion because that's fully briefed and he didn't do that.

[00:14:32] Speaker 00:
So if, because I already moved for that motion, it was fully briefed.

[00:14:36] Speaker 00:
I really think based on the procedural mistakes I made had that motion being considered, we wouldn't be here today.

[00:14:43] Speaker 00:
And finally, again, I want to point out to the panel, pro-state litigation filing is very difficult.

[00:14:49] Speaker 00:
I had to ramp up on bankruptcy, Supreme Court rules, federal court rules, California state rules.

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
There has been a journey all because Utah refused to provide me a hearing.

[00:15:00] Speaker 00:
I consider this a privilege of my lifetime that I got to meet three esteemed judges.

[00:15:07] Speaker 00:
Utah did not let me file a response for alleged defamation, a personal claim,

[00:15:12] Speaker 00:
requiring a dissolved LLC since August 2017 to have counsel.

[00:15:17] Speaker 00:
I do not need counsel for alleged defamation.

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
I was unable to file even a responsive pleading.

[00:15:25] Speaker 00:
They did not let me attend by phone.

[00:15:28] Speaker 00:
There was a standing phone order.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
They did not provide me an order to appear in person.

[00:15:33] Speaker 00:
They did not provide me a hearing by video.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
They just provided an in-person hearing for HMS who went ahead and entered a 10 million judgment against it without giving me the opportunity to dispute jurisdiction and whether its complaint is sufficient.

[00:15:49] Speaker 00:
Those two arguments have been taken up by the Ninth Circuit.

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
And that just happened.

[00:15:55] Speaker 00:
I updated the court at Docket 36, 38, and I believe 39.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
I didn't want to waste your time.

[00:16:01] Speaker 00:
So that's why I think the court should reopen the case.

[00:16:05] Speaker 00:
and not waste the trial court's time, but still give me the protection under docket 39, page 45 to 51.

[00:16:12] Speaker 00:
And if not, if you have the power to grant me $250,000 of the money that's owed to me that HMS has conceded, I can bring my prior counsel.

[00:16:23] Speaker 00:
My counsel in Utah broke her foot.

[00:16:25] Speaker 00:
It would have been very expensive to ramp up another attorney.

[00:16:29] Speaker 00:
I won the cost on appeal in Utah.

[00:16:31] Speaker 00:
They did not let me access the trial court.

[00:16:34] Speaker 00:
So HMS knows the court is the son of a famous politician there.

[00:16:38] Speaker 00:
I have rotted in hell.

[00:16:40] Speaker 00:
And please believe me when I tell you, if you ever hear someone from Utah like me, please listen to them.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
This was the nightmare of my life.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
And I really just open pray for the automatic stay so we can have some reprieve so we can gather our senses and appropriately litigate the rest of the claims.

[00:17:04] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you very much.

[00:17:05] Speaker 03:
Any questions?

[00:17:06] Speaker 01:
No, no, thank you.

[00:17:07] Speaker 03:
All right, thank you both very much.

[00:17:09] Speaker 03:
The matter submitted will be doing a written decision and sending it to both of you.

[00:17:12] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much.

[00:17:16] Speaker 03:
Thank you.