Whether a pro se trustee's post-judgment intervention and appeal challenging property refinancing claims can overcome procedural barriers and district court dismissal

No question identified. : Third, respondents will not be prejudiced by a brief extension. The underlying judgment has been final since July 2023, and respondents have had possession of the disputed property during the pendency of appeals. A 60-day extension will not materially affect any party’s rights or obligations. CONCLUSION This case presents important questions about post-judgment intervention, appellate mandate compliance, and mandatory procedural rules. The additional time will enable proper presentation of these issues to the Court. I therefore respectfully request a 60-day extension to and including March 2, 2026. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Dale Sundby 5282 W. Arid Canyon Dr. Marana, Arizona 85658 (619) 823-6333 dale@sundby.email CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 12, 2025, a copy of the foregoing Application for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari was served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on opposing counsel: Troy H. Slome, Esq. Meylan Davitt Jain Arevian & Kim LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1850 Los Angeles, California 90071 R. Scott Houtz, Esq. Houtz Law 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Ste. 300 Manhattan Beach, California 90266 Lewis R. Landau (State Bar No. 143391) 22287 Mulholland Hwy., #318 Calabasas, California 91302 Dated: December 12, 2025 Dale Sundby yee) Case: 23-55659, 06/30/2025, ID: 12932868, DktEntry: 24-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION F | L E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS guna) 22s MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT eaten In re: DALE SUNDBY, No. 23-55659 Trustee. D.C. Nos. DALE SUNDBY, Trustee, MEMORANDUM" v. MARQUEE FUNDING GROUP, INC.; et al., DALE SUNDBY, No. 24-865 Plaintiff Appellee, D.C. No. v. JEFFREY MYERS; et al., Defendants Appellees, v. EDITH LITTLEFIELD SUNDBY, This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. (9 OF 9) Case: 23-55659, 06/30/2025, ID: 12932868, DktEntry: 24-1, Page 2 of 5 Proposed Movant Appellant. DALE SUNDBY; EDITH LITTLEFIELD SUNDBY, No. 24-1027 D.C. No. Plaintiffs Appellants, Vv. MARQUEE FUNDING GROUP, INC.; et al., Defendants Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 18, 2025" Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Dale Sundby appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments dismissing these consolidated actions in which Dale Sundby, in his individual capacity and as trustee of the Dale H. Sundby and Edith Littlefield Sundby Trust No. 1989-1 dated January 26, 1989 (the “Trust”), brought claims relating to the refinancing of a property in La Jolla, California. Edith Sundby separately appeals pro se from the ae The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 23-55659, 24-865 & 24-1027 (4 OT 0) Case: 23-55659, 06/30/2025, ID: 12932868, DktEntry: 24-1, Page 3 of 5 district court’s striking of her motions to intervene in Case No. 21-cv-02013. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. T