22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T42d,MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs Michael and Cathy Cordas appeal the dismissal of their complaint asserting claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), with leave to amend within 21 days. Plaintiffs did not amend. Instead, they filed a notice of appeal after the 21 days had elapsed. This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a non-final judgment. WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997). The district court’s subsequent dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) did not cure Plaintiffs’ premature appeal from the Rule 8(a) dismissal. See Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 373 (9th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We note that if we had jurisdiction, we would affirm, as the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a). DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T45a,

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs Michael and Cathy Cordas appeal the dismissal of their complaint asserting claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), with leave to amend within 21 days. Plaintiffs did not amend. Instead, they filed a notice of appeal after the 21 days had elapsed.

This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a non-final judgment. WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997). The district court’s subsequent dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) did not cure Plaintiffs’ premature appeal from the Rule 8(a) dismissal. See Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 373 (9th Cir.1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We note that if we had jurisdiction, we would affirm, as the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a).

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.