Court Opinion

ID: 9398506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 16:01:41.130315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:34.043691
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 31 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY P. DEMARTINI; MARGIE                    No.    19-15596
DEMARTINI,
                                                D.C. No.
                Plaintiffs-Appellees,           2:14-cv-02722-JAM-CKD

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MICHAEL J. DEMARTINI; RENATE
DEMARTINI,

                Defendants-Appellants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                    John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 9, 2023**
                       Submission Vacated February 9, 2023
                           Resubmitted May 31, 2023
                            San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Appellants Michael and Renate DeMartini appeal the denial of various orders

entered by the district court. “Before proceeding to the merits of this dispute, we

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
must assure ourselves that we have jurisdiction.” United States v. McIntosh, 833

F.3d 1163, 1170 (9th Cir. 2016). Because we conclude we lack jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, we dismiss this appeal.

      In their pro se notice of appeal filed on March 18, 2019, Appellants stated that

they were appealing four orders entered by the district court: (1) the May 30, 2018,

Interlocutory Judgment of Partition; (2) the August 22, 2018, minute order rejecting

the proposed plan for dividing the property; (3) the September 19, 2018, minute

order appointing a referee to oversee the partition; and (4) the March 1, 2019, order

denying Appellants’ “renewed motion to dismiss.” The March 1, 2019, order was

in response to Appellants’ January 11, 2019, motion, which the district court

construed as a motion to reconsider.

      We have no jurisdiction over the May 30, August 22, and September 19 orders

as the notice of appeal was filed long after the 30-day deadline. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2107; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Hanson v. Shubert, 968 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th

Cir. 2020) (“The thirty-day time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional.”) (simplified).

While a motion to reconsider may toll the appeals period, Appellants’ January 11,

2019, motion to reconsider did not toll any order in the notice of appeal because it

was untimely and “[t]he filing of an untimely motion will not toll the running of the

appeal period.” Hanson, 968 F.3d at 1017–18; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (establishing

                                          2
that a motion to amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry

of the judgment).

      While the notice of appeal was timely as to the March 1, 2019, order denying

Appellants’ motion for reconsideration, we still lack jurisdiction because it is not an

appealable final order standing alone. “The denial of a motion for reconsideration

is immediately appealable if the underlying order is immediately appealable.”

Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 994 (9th Cir. 2007). But even assuming any

underlying order in the notice of appeal was immediately appealable, Appellants’

window to appeal that underlying order has expired and they cannot now “use their

motion for reconsideration” to “resurrect their right to appeal the district court’s

order.” Hanson, 968 F.3d at 1019 (simplified).

      DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

                                          3