Case ID: f-appx_75/html/0636-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arthur F. SUES, Golf Consultant, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRITISH AIRWAYS, a business entity of unknown form, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 02-56062.
    D.C. No. CV-98-00083-AHS.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Sept. 16, 2003.
    Arthur F. Sues, Corona Del Mar, CA, pro se.
    Donald Lee Mabry, Wright, Robinson, Osthimer & Tatum, Los Angeles, CA, Peter M. Hart, Wright, Robinson, Osthimer & Tatum, San Francisco, CA, Arthur I. Willner, Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon & Gladstone, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Arthur F. Sues appeals pro se the district court’s order granting summary judgment in his diversity breach of contract action. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Although not raised by either party, the record indicates that trial is still pending on related issues in a consolidated action. Finality is a jurisdictional question, and must be considered by this Court sua sponte if necessary. See WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). Because the district court did not dispose of the consolidated claims, and denied Sues’s motion for certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), its order is not final and appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir.1984).

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.