Noelle Way v. County of Ventura Robert Brooks Karen Hanson

Good Law
348 F.3d 808·2003 WL 22462136·57 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 339·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9512·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 22441
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 31, 200302-56457California957 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallace, J.

Robert Brooks, Karen Hanson, and County of Ventura (together, County) appeal from an order (Order) denying their motion for summary judgment and granting in part Noelle Way’s motion for partial summary judgment. Because we lack appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.

Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, we have jurisdiction only to hear appeals from “final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . An order is final under section 1291 “if it (1) is a full adjudication of the issues, and (2) clearly evidences the judge’s intention that it be the court’s final act in the matter.” United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443, 448 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Order here falls short of this standard. By inviting the County at the end of the Order to “file motions addressing whether they are entitled to qualified immunity,” the district court’s intention clearly was not that the Order “be the court’s final act in the matter,” but rather that the court would entertain additional arguments. See Nat’l Distrib. Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 432, 434 (9th Cir.1997) (“A district court ruling is not…

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.