Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Lower Elwha Band of S'Klallams; Jamestown Band of S'Klallams; Port Gamble Band of S'Klallams; Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of WASHINGTON, Defendant, and Lummi Indian Tribe, Defendant-Appellee, and Tulalip Tribe, Interested party-Appellee, Puyallup Tribe; Makah Indian Tribe; Suquamish Indian Tribe; Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation; Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; Quinault Indian Nation; Quileute Indian Tribe; Nisqually Indian Tribe; Swinomish Tribal Community; Hoh Indian Tribe; Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Interested parties
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-14
Citations: 400 F. App'x 147
Docket Number: No. 09-35772
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Lower Elwha Band of S’Klallams; Jamestown Band of S’Klallams; Port Gamble Band of S’Klallams; Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of WASHINGTON, Defendant, and Lummi Indian Tribe, Defendant-Appellee, and Tulalip Tribe, Interested party-Appellee, Puyallup Tribe; Makah Indian Tribe; Suquamish Indian Tribe; Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation; Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; Quinault Indian Nation; Quileute Indian Tribe; Nisqually Indian Tribe; Swinomish Tribal Community; Hoh Indian Tribe; Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Interested parties.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 147–148

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Lower Elwha Band of S’Klallams; Jamestown Band of S’Klallams; Port Gamble Band of S’Klallams; Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of WASHINGTON, Defendant, and Lummi Indian Tribe, Defendant-Appellee, and Tulalip Tribe, Interested party-Appellee, Puyallup Tribe; Makah Indian Tribe; Suquamish Indian Tribe; Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation; Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; Quinault Indian Nation; Quileute Indian Tribe; Nisqually Indian Tribe; Swinomish Tribal Community; Hoh Indian Tribe; Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Interested parties.
No. 09-35772.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 6, 2010.
Filed Oct. 14, 2010.
Philip Hugh Lynch, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Peter C. Monson, Esquire, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.
Stephen Hayes Suagee, General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Port Ange-les, WA, Robert Campbell Troyer, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Denver, CO, Lauren Patricia Rasmussen, Esquire, Law Offices of Lauren P. Rasmussen, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Mason D. Morisset, Morisset, Schlosser, Jozwiak & McGaw, Seattle, WA, for Interested party-Appellee.
Robert K. Costello, Deputy Attorney General, Michael S. Grossmann, Joseph Earl Shorin, III, Esquire, Fronda Colleen Woods, Assistants Attorney General, AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendant.
Harry Laurence Johnsen, Daniel Alan Raas, Raas, Johnsen & Stuen, P.S., Mary Michelle Neil, Lummi Indian Nation Office of the Reservation Attorney, Bellingham, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
John Howard Bell, Samuel J. Stiltner, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Tacoma, WA, John Arum, Richard M. Berley, Brian C. Gruber, Marc D. Slonim, Counsel, Ziontz Chestnut Varnell Berley & Slonim, John C. Sledd, Phillip E. Katzen, Kanji & Kat-zen, PLLC, Gregory M. O’Leary, Summit Law Group, PLLC, Eric Nielsen, Nielsen Broman & Koch, PLLC, O. Yale Lewis, III, Law Offices of O. Yale Lewis III, LLC, Harold Chesnin, Law Office of Harold Chesnin, Seattle, WA, Michelle Hito-mi Hansen, Esquire, Office of Tribal Attorney, Suquamish, WA, Tim Weaver, Law Offices of Tim Weaver, Yakima, WA, Robert L. Otsea, II, Chief Counsel, Office of the Tribal Attorney, Auburn, WA, Fawn R. Sharp, Esquire, Quinault Indian Nation, Taholah, WA, William Charles Tobin, Jr., Esquire, Bill Tobin, Attorney at Law, Va-shon, WA, Alix Foster, James M. Jannetta, Office of the Tribal Attorney, La Conner, WA, David Stoller Hawkins, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Sedro Wooley, WA, for Interested parties.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Our prior decision in this dispute sets forth the appropriate standard for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291: "[A] ruling is final for purposes of § 1291 if it (1) is a full adjudication of the issues, and (2) clearly evidences the judge's intention that it be the court's final act in the matter." United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443, 448 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Nat'l Distribution Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir.1997)). The current appeal satisfies neither requirement. The district court denied the motion "without prejudice to renewal as a new subproceeding" and even retained paper copies of the parties' pleadings "so that [their] effort need not be duplicated." The district court also explained that the parties' substantive dispute "remains to be determined." Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.