Sequoia Electric Underground, LLC v. Capriati Construction Corp, Inc., 2:16-cv-01560

Capriati Construction (general contractor) performed NDOT Project 3409; Sequoia was a subcontractor and obtained partial state-court summary judgments against Capriati for unpaid work.
NDOT retained 5% (up to $50,000) plus additional unpaid contract amounts (totaling $232,746.30) as retainage/undisbursed funds under Nevada law and the contract.
Capriati filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and then stipulated with NDOT and Nevada Department of Taxation (NVTax) to apply the retainage and unpaid amounts to certain claims (including NVTax and NDOT claims); the bankruptcy court approved the stipulation four days after it was filed.
Sequoia did not object in the bankruptcy court but appealed the bankruptcy court’s approval, arguing the funds were not property of the estate because Capriati had breached the contract and Fidelity (the surety) or Sequoia itself should be entitled to the funds instead.
Capriati, NDOT, and NVTax argued under Nevada law the contractor (Capriati) retained an interest in the funds, so they were estate property and the stipulation was proper.
The district court dismissed Sequoia’s appeal for failure to raise its issues below, finding no exception justified considering the factual disputes and available post-approval relief in bankruptcy court.

Issue	Sequoia's Argument	Capriati/NDOT/NVTax Argument	Held
Whether the retained/unpaid NDOT funds were property of Capriati’s bankruptcy estate	Funds were not estate property because Capriati breached and the surety (Fidelity) or Sequoia should be entitled to those funds	Contractor (Capriati) had an interest under Nevada law; funds properly treated as estate property	Court did not reach merits — appeal dismissed for failure to present issue to bankruptcy court
Whether Sequoia could raise the objection for the first time on appeal	Emergency/insufficient time to respond to stipulation justified appellate consideration	Sequoia should have moved for relief or reconsideration in bankruptcy court post-approval	Appeal barred: issues not preserved; no exception applied
Whether the bankruptcy court’s order was final and appealable	Order finally determined rights to the retention and unpaid balance; thus appealable	Order was interlocutory and, in any event, Sequoia failed to preserve objections below	Court treated procedural default as dispositive and dismissed appeal without reaching finality question
Whether appellate sanctions (fees) were warranted against Sequoia	N/A — Sequoia did not seek relief on sanctions	Capriati sought fees arguing frivolous appeal	Denied because no separately filed motion for sanctions per Rule 8020

In re Enewally, 368 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised below generally cannot be raised on appeal; lists exceptions)
United States v. Flores-Payon, 942 F.2d 556 (9th Cir. 1991) (same general preservation principle cited)