Linear Corporation, Plaintiff-appellant, v. American Alarm Systems, Inc.; U.S. Monitors, Inc.; T.d.finance Company, Inc.; Jim Scott; Cole Reese; Joan B.reese, Aka Joan C. Barrett; Robert Stuart; Billy L.barron; Synclare Soryn, Aka Synclare Culp, Aka Margaretculp; Patsy Kelso; Does, 1 Through 30, Inclusive,defendants-appellees, 97 F.3d 1459 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^** 

The parties are familiar with the facts and issues of the case and we will not restate them.

We first consider the timeliness of Linear's appeal from the district court's September 25, 1995 order denying Linear's motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants/appellees did not raise this issue, but this court is required to consider it sua sponte. United Artists Corp. v. LA Cage Aux Folles, Inc., 771 F.2d 1265, 1267 (9th Cir. 1985).

We find that notice of appeal from this order was untimely filed, and that neither the claim that the district court implicitly granted an extension of time to file nor the claim that the circumstances warrant the application of the unique circumstances doctrine is availing. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal of this order. See Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984).

The only order timely appealed, and thus before this court for consideration, is Linear's appeal from the district court's December 13, 1995 order denying Linear's motion for reconsideration. We find that the district court did not err in its decision regarding the issues raised in the motion for reconsideration.

We express no opinion on the merits regarding adequacy of service, alter ego, or any other matter.

For the foregoing reasons, Linear's appeal from the district court's order denying Linear's motion for preliminary injunction is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and the district court's decision to deny Linear's motion for reconsideration is AFFIRMED.