Jeffrey Herson v. City of Reno ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                            OCT 16 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    JEFFREY R. HERSON,                               No. 11-17172
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00403-LRH-
    VPC
    v.
    CITY OF RENO,                                    MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted October 8, 2014
    San Francisco, California
    Before: IKUTA, N.R. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    Jeffrey Herson appeals the district court’s order of August 12, 2011 (the
    “Order”) dismissing his claims for lack of standing. We dismiss the appeal for lack
    of jurisdiction.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    This court’s jurisdiction is limited to final decisions of the district court. 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . “Final decisions end the litigation on the merits and leave nothing
    for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Am. States Ins. Co. v. Dastar Corp.,
    
    318 F.3d 881
    , 884 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and alterations
    omitted). “The final judgment rule promotes judicial efficiency, avoids multiplicity
    of litigation and minimizes delay by forbidding piecemeal disposition on appeal of
    what for practical purposes is a single controversy.” 
    Id.
     (internal quotation marks
    and alterations omitted).
    “[A]n order granting a motion to dismiss, standing alone, may not be
    appealable. In these cases, we have looked beyond the dismissal order and read the
    entire record to determine what effect the court intended its order to have.” Nat'l
    Distrib. Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 
    117 F.3d 432
    , 433-34 (9th Cir. 1997)
    (citation omitted). Specifically, “[e]vidence of intent consists of the Order's
    content and the judge’s and parties [sic] conduct.” In re Slimick, 
    928 F.2d 304
    ,
    308 (9th Cir. 1990). This court also looks at whether a plaintiff "elects to stand on
    the dismissed complaint" when determining whether an order granting a motion to
    dismiss without prejudice is "final and appealable." Lopez v. City of Needles, 
    95 F.3d 20
    , 22 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    2
    In the present case, the court’s Order dismissed Herson’s challenge to the
    City of Reno’s sign ordinances without prejudice, thereby allowing Herson to
    amend his complaint. Thereafter, Herson filed a “new” complaint in the same
    court and against the same defendant. See Herson v. City of Reno and State of
    Nevada, Case No. 3:11cv-00633-ECR-WGC. The complaint revived every single
    claim Herson had made against the City of Reno’s sign ordinances in his first
    complaint. The only differences between the first complaint and the second
    complaint were that 1) the second complaint also reflected events that had occurred
    since the filing of Herson’s first complaint; 2) Herson joined the State of Nevada to
    one of his claims;1 and 3) Herson introduced an equal protection claim.
    Challenging the “new” complaint, the City alleged that the “First and Second
    Lawsuits are the same.” Thus, looking beyond the dismissal Order, the record
    indicates that the Order was not perceived as final because Herson did not stand
    upon his original complaint. To avoid piecemeal litigation, the panel holds that the
    Order was not an appealable final judgment. Therefore, this court lacks
    jurisdiction.
    DISMISSED.
    1
    Herson later voluntarily dismissed the State of Nevada from the suit.
    3