Securities & Exchange Commission v. Tringham

MEMORANDUM

Robert Tringham appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to release $24,200 in an ongoing equity receivership. We dismiss.

We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order because it was not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . See FTC v. Overseas Unlimited Agency, Inc., 878 F.2d 1288, 1234-35 (9th Cir.1989) (an order issued in an equity receivership proceeding that does not “finally resolve[ ] the parties’ rights to [the receivership] assets” is not a final order); see also Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 , 98 S.Ct. 2454 , 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978) (an order is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine unless it resolves an issue completely separate from the merits); SEC v. Capital Consultants LLC, 453 F.3d 1166 , 1171 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (a motion is not separate from the merits if its success will mean that “the pool of assets the receiver controls will be smaller” and “the receiver will have fewer resources to distribute to other claimants”).

Contrary to Tringham’s contention, the order does not qualify under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1) as an order “modifying” or “refusing ... to modify” an injunction.…