Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0669-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brian CONNELLY; Keith Merritt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HILTON GRAND VACATIONS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-55431
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted on May 5, 2016
    Withdrawn from Submission on February 8, 2017
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Resubmitted on July 17, 2017 Pasadena, California
    George S. Azadian, Special Counsel, Azadian Law Group, PC, Pasadena, CA, John M. Bickford, Alexander R. Wheeler, Attorney, Parris Law Firm, Lancaster, CA, Charles Theodore Mathews, Attorney, Charles T. Mathews & Associates, San Marino, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Angela Christine Agrusa, Esquire, Liner LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: KOZINSKI, W. FLETCHER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

After the district court denied a motion for class certification, the parties stipulated to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiffs appeal the denial of class certification.

The Supreme Court recently held that a voluntary dismissal of this sort does not qualify as a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1702, 1715, 198 L.Ed.2d 132 (2017) (“Plaintiffs in putative class actions cannot transform a tentative interlocutory order into a final judgment within the meaning of § 1291 simply by dismissing their claims with prejudice ....”) (internal citations omitted). We DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

This case is resubmitted concurrently with the filing of this disposition. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.