Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0932-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHINA ENERGY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael SAMMONS, Defendant-Appellant, and Elena Sammons; et al., Defendants.
    No. 14-16770
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 21, 2016
    China Energy Corporation, Pro Se
    Michael Sammons, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael Sammons appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to intervene on behalf of his wife in plaintiff China Energy Corporation’s diversity action alleging an improper exercise of dissenters’ rights. We dismiss.

We lack jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal because the order challenged is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370, 375, 378-79, 107 S.Ct. 1177, 94 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) (a challenge to a court’s order limiting the scope of a party’s participation in the litigation is a collateral order that generally can be appealed only after a final judgment on the merits); see also Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 113, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009) (“[T]he class of collaterally appealable orders must remain narrow and selective in its membership.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Sammons’s motions to submit the case on the briefs, filed on November 4 and 5, 2014, are denied as moot.

On March 25, 2016, this court informed appellee that a corporation must be represented by counsel and ordered new counsel to file a notice of appearance with the court. The order warned appellee that failure to comply would result in the striking of the previously filed answering brief and submission of the appeal on the opening brief. To date, appellee has not complied with the court’s order. Accordingly, the Clerk shall strike the answering brief at Docket Entry No. 10.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.