Fidel Pajarillo v. Sfr Investments Pool 1, LLC , 670 F. App'x 955 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: FIDEL H. PAJARILLO, No. 14-15977
Debtor, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01935-RCJ
------------------------------
MEMORANDUM*
FIDEL H. PAJARILLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SFR INVESTMENTS POOL 1, LLC; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Fidel H. Pajarillo appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
for failure to prosecute his appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his
adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158. We review for
an abuse of discretion. In re Fitzsimmons, 920 F.2d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1990).
We vacate and remand.
The district court abused its discretion in dismissing Pajarillo’s bankruptcy
appeal because it did not explicitly consider alternative sanctions. See id. at 1474(“[U]nless there are egregious circumstances, the district court must, as the general
rule requires, explicitly consider relative fault and alternative sanctions.”); In re
Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985) (failure to consider alternative sanctions
is an abuse of discretion).
In light of our disposition, we do not consider Pajarillo’s other arguments on
appeal.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
VACATED and REMANDED.
2 14-15977