Kaddis

MEMORANDUM **

William Kaddis appeals from the district court’s order dismissing a number of causes of action, but granting leave to amend four RICO claims and staying pendant state law claims. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The September 23, 2005 Order from which Kaddis appeals was non-final and nonappealable. See WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997) (en bane). The only question is whether the October 24, 2005 notice of appeal “relates forward” to the district court’s final order dismissing the action on July 10, 2006. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(2); FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269 , 111 S.Ct. 648 , 112 L.Ed.2d 743 (1991). It does not. The district court’s September 23, 2005 decision “could not be ‘appealable if immediately followed by the entry of judgment’ because the order could not form the basis of a final judgment without subsequent intervention by the district court” to dismiss the stayed claims. Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 372-73 (9th Cir.1993) (quoting FirsTier, 498 U.S. at 276 , 111 S.Ct. 648 ). Accordingly, there remained more than “the clerk’s ministerial task of entering a Rule 58 judgment.”…