Harmston

Harmston v. City and County of San Francisco

Bad Law
2010 D.A.R. 18·627 F.3d 1273·111 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 46·78 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 234·2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25253
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 10, 201009-16562California3,700 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bybee, J.

The district court sanctioned police officer Andrew Cohen and attorney Waukeen Q. McCoy (collectively, “Cohen”) in 2007 for violating the court’s discovery protective order. After the district court remanded the case to state court in 2008, and after the state court entered judgment, Cohen appealed the district court’s sanctions order in 2009. We are first asked to decide whether the remand order was a “final” order for purposes of permitting Cohen to appeal the sanctions order. Concluding that the remand order was final, we then must determine whether the appeal was timely filed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). We conclude that it was not and that we lack jurisdiction to hear Cohen’s appeal.

I

Eighteen San Francisco police officers— most of whom were stationed in Bayview— created a comedy video in 2005. Finding the video offensive, Police Chief Heather Fong (“Fong”) disciplined several of the participating police officers. In August 2006, eighteen of those officers (including co-appellant Andrew Cohen), represented by co-appellant McCoy, filed suit in state court, alleging race discrimination, retaliation, defamation, and intentional infliction of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.