Hartman v. George, et al.
| ERIC F. HARTMAN |
| KOSHY P. GEORGE, LYNN DORNON KUEHN, DAVE CORTESE, California State Senator, EVETTE D. PENNYPACKER, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge, VINCENT DOCTOR, ATTORNEY, Santa Clara County Assistant District Attorney, SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY and COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA |
| 26-3212 |
| May 19, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 22, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 MANDATE ISSUED Michelle T. FRIEDLAND, Ryan D. NELSON, Bridget S. BADE. The judgment of this Court, entered 5/28/2026, takes effect this date. [Entered: 06/22/2026 11:07 AM] |
Filing 4
ORDER FILED. FRIEDLAND, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. A district courts dismissal order is not final or immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291 unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or unless judgment is entered in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also 28 U.S.C. 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the April 13, 2026 order did not dispose of all claims as to all parties. Although the district court directed the clerk to enter judgment as to the moving parties, the district court did not enter a separate judgment. The district court also did not state that there is no just reason for delay and that the judgment would be immediately appealable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Morrison- Knudsen Co., Inc., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir. 1985) (order disposing of fewer than all claims or parties is not appealable absent express determination from district court that there is no just reason for delay under Rule 54(b)). This appeal is therefore dismissed. See 9th Cir. R. 3-6(b) (if court determines it lacks jurisdiction, court may dismiss appeal without notice or further proceedings). DISMISSED. [Entered: 05/28/2026 04:30 PM]
|
| Filing 3 Originating Court Notice of Fee Received. [Entered: 05/21/2026 02:02 PM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Answering Brief Due (Appellee) 9/4/2026, Appeal Transcript Due (Appellant) 6/26/2026, Appeal Opening Brief Due (Appellant) 8/5/2026, Appeal Transcript Order Due (Appellant) 5/27/2026. For appeal no. 26-3212, 5:25-cv-09816-BLF. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 05/19/2026 02:07 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 5:25-cv-09816-BLF has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 26-3212 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the Case Opening Information (for #attorneys and #pro se litigants) and review the #Appellate Practice Guide. Attorneys should consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 05/19/2026 02:02 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
