Jason M. Fabrizius, Plaintiff/cross-defendant/defendant Inintervention/appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant/cross-claimant/appellee,andmary Helen Pine, et al., Plaintiffs in Intervention/appellees, 17 F.3d 394 (9th Cir. 1994)
Annotate this CaseBefore: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4, the panel has concluded that this case may be considered on the briefs without oral argument. Upon due consideration of the briefs and supplemental filings of the parties, it is apparent that the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the district neither entered final judgment as to all the claims before it nor entered a Rule 54 certification for the claim it had completely resolved. The judgment will not be final until the district court determines the damages that each party owes and enters a final judgment accordingly. This dismissal is, of course, without prejudice to any timely appeal that may be filed after the entry of an appealable judgment.
The appeal is DISMISSED.
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
