Ditech Financial LLC v. Dutch Oven Court Trust ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, FKA Green No. 20-15066
Tree Servicing LLC; FEDERAL
NATIONAL MORTGAGE D.C. No.
ASSOCIATION, 2:16-cv-02906-JAD-NJK
Plaintiffs-counter-
defendants-Appellees, MEMORANDUM*
v.
TALASERA AND VICANTO
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION;
NEVADA ASSOCIATION SERVICES,
INC.,
Defendants,
and
DUTCH OVEN COURT TRUST,
Defendant-counter-claimant-
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted April 13, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON,*** District Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Dutch Oven Court Trust (“Dutch Oven”) attempts to
appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Plaintiffs-Appellees
Ditech Financial LLC and Fannie Mae in their quiet-title action. However, because
Dutch Oven failed to timely file a valid notice of appeal with the district court, we
lack jurisdiction over this appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal pursuant to
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3(c) and 4(a).
A valid notice of appeal must “specify the party or parties taking the appeal
by naming each one in the caption or body of the notice” and “designate the
judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(A)–(B).
“[T]he notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk
within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1)(A). In this case, the district court entered judgment on December 13,
2019. The 30th day from entry of judgment was Sunday, January 12, 2020. By
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for
the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
2
rule, the deadline extended to Monday, January 13, 2020. See Fed. R. App. P.
26(a)(1)(C).
On January 13, 2020, Dutch Oven filed a putative notice of appeal that failed
to comply with the content requirements of Rule 3(c). The putative notice listed the
wrong plaintiffs, the wrong defendants, the wrong case number, the wrong
judgment, and the wrong judgment date. While a “technical error in a notice of
appeal does not deprive [this court] of jurisdiction,” we have reiterated the
Supreme Court’s admonition that “failure to name a party in a notice of appeal is
more than excusable informality, but rather, ‘it constitutes a failure of that party to
appeal.’” Le v. Astrue, 558 F.3d 1019, 1022–23 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted)
(quoting Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 314 (1988)). We decline
Dutch Oven’s invitation to treat these deficiencies as technical errors.
Dutch Oven contends that its amended notice of appeal cured any defects in
the initial, defective notice of appeal. The amended notice, however, was filed on
January 14, 2020 and was, therefore, untimely under Rule 4(a).1 “[B]ecause the
time constraints outlined in Rule 4(a) implement the limitations Congress imposed
on this Court by statute, [this Court] must dismiss civil appeals that are untimely
1
Dutch Oven did not file a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal
as authorized by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).
3
for lack of jurisdiction . . . .” United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir.
2007). Thus, we dismiss Dutch Oven’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.2
DISMISSED.
2
Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 32, is denied as moot.
4