eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-06

James Song v. Aaron Drenberg ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       JUN 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES K. SONG; et al.,                         No.   19-17450
Plaintiffs-Appellants,          D.C. No. 5:18-cv-06283-LHK
ADAM E. ENGEL,
MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
AARON DRENBERG,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
ALEXA PETTINARI; MARK L.
PETTINARI,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 16, 2021**
San Francisco, California
*
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).
Before: SCHROEDER, M. SMITH, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
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.1 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).
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).
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them here only as
necessary.
2
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
3