Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01068/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01068-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CUNZHU ZHENG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

YAHOO! INC., et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C 08-1068 MMC

ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE CLAIMS AGAINST

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

By order filed December 28, 2009, the Court ordered plaintiffs to serve the remaining

defendant, the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”), no later than January 20, 2010, and to

file proof of such service no later than January 27, 2010. Plaintiffs were advised that if they

did not file such proof of service by the deadline, the Court would dismiss plaintiffs’ claims

against the PRC without prejudice. To date, plaintiffs have not filed proof of service of the

summons and operative complaint on the PRC.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims against the PRC are hereby DISMISSED without

prejudice.

//

//

Case 3:08-cv-01068-MMC Document 98 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 2
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

1

On January 4, 2010, plaintiff Cunzhu Zheng (“Zheng”), proceeding pro se and

purportedly acting on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs, filed an unsigned notice of

appeal from the Court’s December 2, 2009 order. “The filing of a notice of appeal generally

divests the district court of jurisdiction over the matters appealed.” Davis v. Unified States, 667 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1982). An order dismissing claims against some, but not all,

defendants, however, is not an appealable order. See Frank Briscoe Co. v.

Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir.1985). Consequently, the Court will

“disregard the purported notice of appeal” from the order of December 2, 2009, and will

direct the Clerk to enter judgment. See Ruby v. Secretary of the U.S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385,

389 (9th Cir. 1966) (holding improper appeal does not deprive district court of jurisdiction).

2

Further, because the Court, by order filed December 2, 2009, dismissed plaintiffs’

claims against all other defendants, the Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to enter judgment

against plaintiffs and to close the file.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01068-MMC Document 98 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 2