William Maddox, Plaintiff, v. San Mateo County, et Al, Defendants.curtis G. Oler, Claimant-appellant, v. William Maddox and San Mateo County, Defendants-appellees, 967 F.2d 588 (9th Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 967 F.2d 588 (9th Cir. 1992) Argued and Submitted May 13, 1992. Decided June 4, 1992

Before GOODWIN, FLETCHER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.


Appellant Curtis G. Oler ("Oler") appeals from the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the case between appellees William Maddox ("Maddox") and San Mateo County ("San Mateo"). We DISMISS for lack of jurisdiction.

The district court had dismissed the underlying case based on the parties' settlement agreement. Oler, Maddox's former attorney, was not a party to the underlying case. In United States v. City of Oakland, 958 F.2d 300 (9th Cir. 1992), we affirmed the general rule that one who is not a party or has not been treated as a party to a judgment has no right to appeal.

In Oakland, we held that occasionally one who is not a party to the litigation could appeal from the final judgment only after being granted leave to intervene for such purpose. Id. at 302. In the present case, Oler did not seek leave to intervene in either the underlying action or for purposes of appeal. The district court's judgment has become final as to the parties.



This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3