ADONICAN v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES 0117303o

Docket Nº:0117303o
Party Name:ADONICAN v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Case Date:August 06, 2002
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

ADONICAN v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES 0117303o

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA TERESA ADONICAN, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a

Governmental Entity, and DOES Defendant-Appellee.

No. 01-17303; D.C. No. CV-99-13075-GAF1-10.

ORDER

Appeal From the United States District Court For the Central District of California

Gary Allen Feess, District Judge, Presiding

Not Argued

Filed August 6, 2002

Before: James R. Browning, Alex Kozinski and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

COUNSEL

Lenton Aikins, The Aikins Law Firm, Long Beach, Califor-nia, for appellant Maria Teresa Adonican.

Douglas C. Smith, Bonne, Bridges, Mueller, O’Keefe & Nichols, Riverside, California; Martin Stein, Barry M. Wolf, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, LLP, Los Angeles, Cali-fornia, for appellee City of Los Angeles.

ORDER

Appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is granted.

The parties wished to have a partial summary judgment reviewed before proceeding forward with Appellant’s remaining claims. They entered into an agreement that Appellant would voluntarily dismiss her remaining claims, but would have the option to refile her dismissed claims at any time up to thirty days after a decision from this Court. Appellee agreed not to raise a statute of limitations defense during that time period. This agreement was never presented to the district court and was not approved by the court.

Thereafter, Appellant filed a voluntary dismissal of her remaining claims without prejudice, which Appellee signed. The District Court entered an order pursuant to this dismissal. Although a dismissal without prejudice can be a final, appealable order, there must be "no evidence [one or both of the parties] attempted to manipulate our appellate jurisdiction by artificially ‘manufacturing’ finality." James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002).

The parties wanted a ruling on some, but not all, of the Appellant’s claims before proceeding with the rest of the case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) states that the trial court must determine whether a judgment that disposes of less than all claims and all parties should be considered final. The parties here have attempted to usurp the trial court’s role. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Dannenberg v. Software Toolworks Inc., 16 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1994); Cheng v. Comm’r, 878 F.2d 306 (9th Cir. 1989). As in Dannenberg and Cheng...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP