Case ID: f-appx_623/html/0312-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vera DRAGICEVICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., individually and as successor by merger to Chase Home Finance LLC; California Reconveyance Company, Defendants-Appellees. Vera Dragicevich, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., individually and as successor by merger to Chase Home Finance LLC; California Reconveyance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 13-56568, 14-55177.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2015.
    Filed Nov. 19, 2015.
    Keith A. Robinson, Attorney at Law, Woodland Hills, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Michael Scott French, Wargo & French LLP, Atlanta, GA, Paul A. Turbow, Esquire, Wargo & French LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Glenn J. Plattner, Esquire, Andrea Nieves Winternitz, Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendants-Appellees,
    Before: GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges and DANIEL, Senior District Judge.
    
      
      The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Colorado, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of JP Morgan Chase Bank and the district court’s denial of her motion to extend time to file an appeal. We dismiss the merits appeal as untimely filed, and we affirm the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) order. We also dissolve the October 30, 2015 injunction.

1. In No. 13-56568, which is the appeal of the summary judgment, we dismiss the appeal as untimely filed. The docket sheet for this matter shows that the notice of appeal was “filed” (as well as entered on the docket) on “09/06/2013,” even though the document was dated September 3, 2013. A timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

2. In No. 14-55177, which is the appeal from the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs Rule 4(a)(5) motion, we affirm. We review a district court’s denial of a motion to extend time to file an appeal, as well as the application of its own local rules, for abuse of discretion. Prof'l Programs Grp. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 29 F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir.1994); Oregon v. Champion Int’l Corp., 680 F.2d 1300, 1301 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam). The district court permissibly relied on the court’s strict requirement that parties adhere to Central District of California Rule 7-3; Plaintiff admittedly did not comply with this Rule.

3. This court issued an injunction on October 30, 2015, enjoining Defendants from selling the property at issue in this case, pending oral argument and further order from this court. Because we deny relief in this case, we hereby ORDER that the injunction be dissolved.

Appeal in No. 13-56568 DISMISSED; in No. 14-55177 AFFIRMED; injunction DISSOLVED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.