Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01455/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01455-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

18cv1455-LAB (JLB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTON EWING, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

OASIS MEDIA, LLC, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv1455-LAB (JLB)

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES 

TO CONTINUE COMPLYING 

WITH ORDERS AND 

DEADLINES

On February 22, the Court issued an order striking Plaintiff Anton Ewing’s 

opposition, setting aside the entries of defaults against Defendants. Ewing’s 

declarations showed he been interviewing represented parties without their 

attorneys’ knowledge or consent and his emails included wording implying that he 

was a lawyer, which he is not. The Court ordered him to stop contacting 

represented parties in this case, and also said he must cease suggesting that he 

was a lawyer, particularly when discussing legal matters.

1 Defendants were 

ordered to file responsive pleadings to the complaint.

 

1 Because the law already sets limits on this, it was unnecessary for the Court to 

formally order Ewing to obey the law, or to fashion detailed instructions about what 

to avoid.

Case 3:18-cv-01455-LAB-MSB Document 51 Filed 03/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18cv1455-LAB (JLB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ewing has now filed a notice of appeal of that order (Docket no. 47.) 

Although he styles it as an appeal of the Court’s final order, the order is in fact nonfinal. The fact that the order required the parties to continue litigating should have 

made that clear. The only parts of the order that are even arguably appealable are

the prohibitions on Ewing contacting represented parties in this case and holding 

himself out as a lawyer. The Court said it anticipated issuing an order to show 

cause regarding sanctions or contempt, and directed the parties to retain records 

in preparation for that. But the Court has not yet issued such an order.

Ordinarily the filing of a notice of appeal divests the Court of jurisdiction. But 

where, as here, “the deficiency in a notice of appeal, by reason of . . . reference to 

a non-appealable order, is clear to the district court, it may disregard the purported 

notice of appeal and proceed with the case, knowing that it has not been deprived 

of jurisdiction.” Ruby v. Secretary of U.S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966) 

(en banc); see also Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 909–10 (9th Cir. 2007).

The Court finds Ewing’s notice of appeal has not deprived it of jurisdiction

over this case. The case is not stayed, and the parties are ORDERED to continue 

litigating. This means they must continue complying with deadlines and obeying 

the Court’s orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2019

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01455-LAB-MSB Document 51 Filed 03/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2