Turay v. Anderson

MEMORANDUM ^**

There are two issues raised in this appeal. The first, whether the district court inappropriately imposed new injunctive conditions in its November 1998 order, has been resolved by a previous panel.¹ We decline to revisit that issue under the law of the case doctrine, and instead give pre-clusive effect to the previous judgment affirming the district court’s order.² Accordingly, we affirm as to that issue. We lack jurisdiction over the remaining issue: whether the district court abused its discretion when it found defendants in contempt and imposed sanctions. The district court’s order did not “modify” or “continue” the injunction,³ nor did it meet the jurisdictional standard of the collateral order doctrine — the order left the issue of sanctions “open, unfinished or inconclusive” and was thus not “final” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.⁴ “Piecemeal appeals are rarely entertained,”⁵ and we decline to do so in this case. Accordingly, we dismiss that issue.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

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

1 . See Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir.2000).

2 . See Wyler Summit P'ship v. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc., 235 F.3d 1184, 1193 (9th Cir.2000) (''[T]he decision of an appellate court on a legal issue must be followed in all subsequent proceedings in the same case.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

3 . See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

4 . Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949).

5 . Cacique, Inc. v. Robert Reiser & Co., 169 F.3d 619, 622 (9th Cir.1999).