Dustin Rollins v. MERS, et al
DUSTIN ROLLINS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons |
MORTGAGE ELENCTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and MERSCORP, INC. |
12-16261 |
May 30, 2012 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
Foreclosure |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
Description |
---|
DUSTIN ROLLINS V. MERS |
DUSTIN ROLLINS V. MERS |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 9025583537 Filed Order for PUBLICATION (A. WALLACE TASHIMA, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER and JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN) This appeal comes to us in an unusual procedural posture and presents a nuanced issue of appellate jurisdiction. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ( JPML ) issued an order that split the claims presented in this and numerous other cases some claims were transferred to the MDL court, while others were remanded to the transferor courts. As a result of the JPML order, the MDL court, when confronted with a motion to dismiss, could only act on a portion of the motion. The MDL court, recognizing that its authority to act was limited to only some of the claims, granted the motion in part, thereby dismissing some, but not all, of the claims pending in this action. (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) Accordingly, we order a limited remand to the MDL court for its consideration as to whether its May 25, 2012, dismissal order should be certified as an appealable final judgment under Rule 54(b). See, e.g., Nat l Ass n of Home Builders v. Norton, 325 F.3d 1165, 1168 (9th Cir. 2003) ( This matter is therefore remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of its granting or denying plaintiffs motion for a Rule 54(b) certification. ); Quach, 216 F. App x at 666. On limited remand, the district court either should expressly determine that there is no just reason for delay, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), or should decline to enter a Rule 54(b) certification. This panel shall retain jurisdiction over this appeal. A copy of this order shall serve as the mandate of limited remand. See Norton, 325 F.3d at 1168. IT IS SO ORDERED. [8898571] |
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.