Maria Teresa Adonican, an Individual v. City of Los Angeles, a Governmental Entity, and Does 1-10

Good Law
2002 Daily Journal DAR 8891·297 F.3d 1106·2002 WL 1792400·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7094·2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 15661
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 6, 200201-17303California606 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

Appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is granted.

The parties wished to have a partial summary judgment reviewed before proceeding forward with Appellant’s remaining claims. They entered into an agreement that Appellant would voluntarily dismiss her remaining claims, but would have the option to refile her dismissed claims at any time up to thirty days after a decision from this Court. Appellee agreed not to raise a statute of limitations defense during that time period. This agreement was never presented to the district court and was not approved by the court.

Thereafter, Appellant filed a voluntary dismissal of her remaining claims without prejudice, which Appellee signed. The District Court entered an order pursuant to this dismissal. Although a dismissal without prejudice can be a final, appealable order, there must be “no evidence [one or both of the parties] attempted to manipulate our appellate jurisdiction by artificially ‘manufacturing’ finality.” James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir.2002).

The parties wanted a ruling on some, but not all, of the Appellant’s claims before proceeding with the rest of the case.…

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.