Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Gerald CARLIN; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
John SPOONER; et al., Objectors-Appellants, v. DairyAmerica, Inc.; California Dairies, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Objectors appeal the district court's order approving a $40-million class action settlement between Plaintiffs-Appellees (a class of almost 26,000 dairy farmers) and Defendants-Appellees DairyAmerica, Inc. and California Dairies, Inc. (collectively, “Appellees”).1 We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in civil cases; we “must dismiss civil appeals that are untimely for lack of jurisdiction, whether or not the parties raise the issue.” United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007).2
There is no valid notice of appeal in this case. The district court struck the objectors’ notice of appeal for failure to comply with local and federal rules because it was signed only by the objectors’ attorney, who was neither admitted to the Bar of the Eastern District of California nor permitted to appear in the case pro hac vice. The objectors did not appeal the district court's order striking the notice of appeal or seek to cure the notice's deficiencies.
A valid notice of appeal is the mechanism that transfers jurisdiction from the district court to the court of appeals. See Ruby v. Sec'y of the Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 388 (9th Cir. 1966) (en banc) (“If, by reason of defects in form or execution, a notice of appeal does not transfer jurisdiction to the court of appeals, then such jurisdiction must remain in the district court; it cannot float in the air.”); see also Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007). Because there is no valid notice of appeal, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, we recite only those facts necessary to decide this appeal.
2. Appellees raised the jurisdictional issue in a prior motion for summary disposition, which was denied by a Ninth Circuit motions panel without prejudice. Because the motion was denied without prejudice, we may still consider the issue of appellate jurisdiction. See Nat'l Indus., Inc. v. Republic Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 677 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1982).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-16166
Decided: June 11, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)