Opinion
19-17450
06-21-2021
JAMES K. SONG; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AARON DRENBERG, Defendant-Appellee, ADAM E. ENGEL, Appellant, and ALEXA PETTINARI; MARK L. PETTINARI, Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted June 16, 2021 [**] San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 5:18-cv-06283-LHK for the Northern District of California Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, M. SMITH, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Plaintiffs-Appellants James K. Song, FaircapX, Inc., Mithrandir, Inc., Faircap Partners, LLC, and Faircap Angels, Inc., and Appellant Adam E. Engel, appeal various discovery rulings after Plaintiffs-Appellants voluntarily dismissed their case without prejudice before the district court. Our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 extends only to appeals from "final decisions." We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is generally not a final judgment, see Galaza v. Wolf, 954 F.3d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 2020) ("We have … ruled that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is ordinarily not a final judgment from which the plaintiff may appeal." (emphasis in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)), and no exception to that general rule applies here. See id. at 1272; see also James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 2002).
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them here only as necessary.
Moreover, the discovery rulings challenged by appellants are not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 103, 113 (2009); Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 200, 210 (1999); Sali v. Corona Reg'l Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1221 n.3, 1221-22 (9th Cir. 2018); Admiral Ins. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Arizona, 881 F.2d 1486, 1490 (9th Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
[*] 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).