Santoro

Santoro v. CTC Foreclosures Services Corp.

Good Law
193 F.3d 1106·99 Daily Journal DAR 10423·1999 WL 787433·44 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1299·1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 24619
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 5, 1999No. 98-56755California333 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Joseph and Grace Santoro brought an action alleging, inter alia, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Truth in Lending Act. The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the Santoros appeal. We must first determine whether we have jurisdiction. See MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir.1987) (per curiam).

The district court order granting defendants’ summary judgment motion states, in pertinent part:

Instead of amending their complaint, the Santoros appealed from this order and from the district court’s previous order, which granted in part and denied in part defendants’ summary judgment motion.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we have jurisdiction over final orders of the district court. We have previously held that a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is not an appealable final order, if the district court also grants plaintiffs leave to amend. See WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1183, 1136-37 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). The parties nevertheless seem to believe that we have jurisdiction because the Santoros chose not to amend their complaint and because the parties have agreed to “waive” finality in this…

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.