Robert Erskine v. All Corporations and Individua, et al
| ROBERT LEE ERSKINE |
| ALL CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS, THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE MANUFACTURING, SALES, AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL and ALL STATE, FEDERAL AGENCIES, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT REGULATE THE MANUFACTURE, SALES AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL AND ALL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE |
| 21-35621 |
| August 3, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| ROBERT ERSKINE V. ALL CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUA |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 20, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed order (MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, PAUL J. WATFORD and KENNETH K. LEE) A review of the record demonstrates that this court currently lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal dismissing the complaint with leave to amend is not final or appealable. See WMX Techs.,Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) ([W]hen a district court expressly grants leave to amend, it is plain that the order is not final. Something more is both anticipated and required. In that event, a further step must be taken to fix an unequivocal terminal date for appealability, and to avoid the hazards of confusion or misunderstanding as to the time for appeal. A final judgment must be obtained before the case becomes appealable.) (internal citation omitted). Although appellant stated in his notice of appeal that he is refusing to file another amended [sic] complaint[,] he did not file a separate notice in the district court of his intent to stand on the complaint, and has not obtained a final order or judgment from the district court. See Lopez v. City of Needles, 95 F.3d 20, 22 (9th Cir. 1996) (district court must be advised in writing of decision not to file an amended complaint so that final judgment can be entered); Proud v. United States, 704 F.2d 1099, 1100 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam). However, we find it in the interest of judicial efficiency to stay proceedings in this appeal and remand the case to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing that court to consider appellants statement in the notice of appeal that he does not intend to file an amended complaint and enter an order or judgment as the district court deems appropriate. If the district court enters a final judgment, this appeal will proceed. See Hall v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 476 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2007) (deeming a premature appeal from a dismissal with leave to amend to have been taken from the final judgment where the district court entered judgment after the plaintiff declined to amend). Appellant shall file a notice in this court within 14 days after the district court enters an order or judgment on remand. The Clerk will send a copy of this order to the district judge. [12233469] (CKP) [Entered: 09/20/2021 02:32 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Robert Lee Erskine letter dated 09/05/2021 requesting to amend the defendants to inculded USA. Paper filing deficiency: None. [12229552] (RR) [Entered: 09/15/2021 03:03 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Robert Lee Erskine motion to appoint pro bono counsel. Deficiencies: None. [12205414] (RR) [Entered: 08/19/2021 12:38 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed original and 0 copies of Appellant Robert Lee Erskine opening brief of 6 pages (Informal: Yes). Served on 08/07/2021. [12203268] (KWG) [Entered: 08/17/2021 08:45 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Robert Lee Erskine opening brief due 10/04/2021. [12190778] (RT) [Entered: 08/03/2021 01:22 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
| Search for this case: Robert Erskine v. All Corporations and Individua, et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: ROBERT LEE ERSKINE | |
| Represented By: | Robert Lee Erskine |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: ALL CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS, THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE MANUFACTURING, SALES, AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: ALL STATE, FEDERAL AGENCIES, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT REGULATE THE MANUFACTURE, SALES AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL AND ALL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
