Case Name: Gyorgy FODOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIME WARNER, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-10
Citations: 217 F. App'x 631
Docket Number: No. 06-55526
Parties: Gyorgy FODOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIME WARNER, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 631–632

Head Matter:
Gyorgy FODOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIME WARNER, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-55526.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 21, 2006.
Filed Jan. 10, 2007.
Gyorgy Fodor, Beverly Hills, CA, pro se.
William D. Temko, Esq., Munger Tolies & Olson, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gyorgy Fodor appeals pro se from the district court's orders dismissing his action and declaring him a vexatious litigant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal order, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004), and review for abuse of discretion the district court's entry of a vexatious litigant order, De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.
Fodor's sole contention on appeal is that the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the defendants' motions while Fodor's petition for a writ of mandamus was pending before this court. This contention is without merit. See Ellis v. United States Dist. Court (In re Ellis), 360 F.3d 1022, 1023 (9th Cir.2004) (order) ("in the context of an extraordinary writ such as mandamus, there is no need for us to relinquish our jurisdiction to the district court because it was never deprived of jurisdiction over the underlying case"). Accordingly, the district court properly exercised jurisdiction, and its orders dismissing Fodor's action and declaring him a vexatious litigant are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.