Case ID: f-appx_406/html/0189-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and Marvin G. Calhoun, dba Calhoun’s Hawthorne Gardens, LLC, Intervenor-Appellant, v. Capital Pacific Bank and Certain HG Tics, Intervenors-Appellees, and Sunwest Mgmt., Inc.; et al., Defendants.
    No. 09-36003.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.
    
    Filed Dec. 16, 2010.
    
      Marvin G. Calhoun, Vancouver, WA, pro se.
    Brent Gordon Summers, Esquire, Tar-low Naito Summers LLP, Portland, OR, for Capital Pacific Bank, Intervenor-Appellee.
    Tara J. Schleicher, Esquire, Farleigh Wada Witt, Portland, OR, for Certain HG Tics, Intervenor-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Intervenor Marvin G. Calhoun, dba Calhoun’s Hawthorne Gardens, LLC, appeals pro se from the district court’s order directing him to execute a settlement agreement in accordance with a prior settlement between Calhoun and other parties. We dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

We have “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts ...” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The record indicates that the order appealed from is not a final order, rather, the underlying action is in mediation and judgment has not been entered. Moreover, the district court did not certify the matter for immediate appeal. See F.R. Civ. P. 54(b). In the absence of such an order, “any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties.” Id.; see Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir.1981).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.