Mohammad Kargarian v. Papa John's Pizza, No. 20-1959 (4th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1959 MOHAMMAD M. KARGARIAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PAPA JOHN’S PIZZA, Defendant - Appellee, and ADAM SMITH, Store Manager, Papa John’s Pizza; JOSHUA, Assistant Manager, Papa John’s Pizza; TRAVIS, Assistant Manager, Papa John’s Pizza, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. David C. Keesler, Magistrate Judge. (3:18-cv-00439-FDW-DCK) Submitted: March 29, 2021 Decided: April 1, 2021 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mohammad M. Kargarian, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Douglas Dellinger, Elizabeth Howe Pratt, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mohammad M. Kargarian seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying Kargarian’s postjudgment motion for a trial. The parties did not consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, so the magistrate judge was not empowered to enter a final, appealable order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), (c)(1). The denial of Kargarian’s motion for a trial is not a final, appealable order; accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Rajaratnam v. Moyer, 47 F.3d 922, 923-24 (7th Cir. 1995). We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED In its informal response brief, Defendant Papa John’s Pizza contends that this appeal—Kargarian’s second in this case—is frivolous and vexatious. Defendant requests that we impose sanctions under Fed. R. App. P. 38. To the extent this request is procedurally proper, see Fed. R. App. P. 38 (providing authorization for imposing sanctions “after a separately filed motion or notice from the court”), we deny the request. * 2

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.