Sanai
Sanai v. Sanai
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
1. The following orders are non-final and beyond our jurisdiction to review:
a. The May 15, 2003 order releasing the lis pendens. See Special Inv., Inc. v. Aero Air, Inc., 360 F.3d 989 , 993 (9th Cir.2004). The order is not appealable as an injunction. See Shee Atika v. Sealaska Corp., 39 F.3d 247, 248 (9th Cir.1994) (describing jurisdiction over orders where the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1) is satisfied).
b. The October 17, 2003 protective order. See Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 881 F.2d 1486, 1490 (9th Cir.1989) (describing discovery orders as non-appealable). The order is not an injunction, because no state court proceedings are enjoined. See Sperry Rand Corp. v. *678 Rothlein, 288 F.2d 245, 248 (2d Cir.1961). Neither does this case meet the requirements for consideration of a writ of mandamus. See Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir.1977).
c. The October 23 and October 27, 2003 partial summary judgment orders. See American States Ins. Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881 (9th Cir.2003). The case of Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.2003), is based on a unique California statute that does not apply in…