JOHN G. OPPENHEIMER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the denial of summary judgment is not a final order and the interlocutory orders were not certified for appeal.
Plaintiff filed a civil rights action and a motion for partial summary judgment, which was denied. The plaintiff then attempted to appeal this denial …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Final Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The plaintiff commenced this civil rights action against the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, the County, various County boards and commissioners and particular officials. Thereafter he filed a “Motion for Summary Judgment, in Part,” which was denied.
This appeal was taken from that denial as well as “from interlocutory orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).” No written statement of the district judge certifying any order for immediate appeal was made in any of the orders from which appeal is attempted to be taken, as required by Section 1292(b).
The denial of the motion is not appealable since it is not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The interlocutory orders are not appealable because the district judge did not certify them for appeal. This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and it. must be dismissed.1
. A prompt motion to dismiss by appellees would have eliminated time and expense both for clients, counsel and the court in these circumstances.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hotel & Rest. Emps. & Bartenders Int'l Union v. Rollison, 615 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1980)
-
Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Blazon Corp., 609 F.2d 960 (9th Cir. 1979)
-
Burke v. Ernest W. Hahn, Inc., 592 F.2d 542 (9th Cir. 1979)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence