Horaney

MEMORANDUM *

Horaney appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of ap-pellees and the assessment of attorneys’ fees and costs against him. Hyman appeals from the district court’s attorneys’ fees and costs order against him pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1927. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . We do not have jurisdiction over Hora-ney’s claims, and we dismiss them for lack of appellate jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction over the Hyman fees and costs order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court did not consider or adjudicate Horaney’s claims of conversion and violation of California’s Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act in either the summary judgment order or the judgment. This court has “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Absent certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment on less than all claims is not a final decision. Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir.1981). The claims of conversion and violation of California’s Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act are distinct from the claim regarding the…