From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chanler v. Stonich

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 9, 2003
77 F. App'x 437 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion


77 Fed.Appx. 437 (9th Cir. 2003) Clifford CHANLER; Lauren Wales Chanler, Plaintiffs--Appellants, v. John A. STONICH; Lawrence E. Fahn; Thomas W. Van Dyck; as You Sow, (Ays), Defendants--Appellees. No. 02-17093. D.C. No. CV 01-0648 VRW. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. October 9, 2003

Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 2003.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Vaughn R. Walker, District Judge, Presiding.

Before B. FLETCHER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK, Senior District Judge.

The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

ORDER

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

In response to the order issued by the court, the parties agree that there is no final judgment in this case. Plaintiffs' claims against defendants Pruitt, Portik, SPJ Skip Tracing, and SPJ Associates are still pending in the district court. This court therefore lacks appellate jurisdiction over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Baker v. Limber, 647 F.2d 912, 916 (9th Cir.1981) (holding that an order adjudicating the rights and liabilities of fewer than all of the parties is not final under § 1291,

Page 438.

absent a certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)).

This appeal is hereby DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Chanler v. Stonich

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 9, 2003
77 F. App'x 437 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

Chanler v. Stonich

Case Details

Full title:Clifford CHANLER; Lauren Wales Chanler, Plaintiffs--Appellants, v. John A…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 9, 2003

Citations

77 F. App'x 437 (9th Cir. 2003)