MICHAEL CORDAS V. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., No. 12-56000 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 18 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MICHAEL CORDAS; CATHY CORDAS, No. 12-56000 D.C. No. 8:11-cv-01688-AG-JPR Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for the Certificate-Holders of HE LXS 2007-7N Trust; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Submitted December 3, 2013** Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Plaintiffs Michael and Cathy Cordas appeal the dismissal of their complaint asserting claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), with leave to amend within 21 days. Plaintiffs did not amend. Instead, they filed a notice of appeal after the 21 days had elapsed. This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a non-final judgment. WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997). The district court s subsequent dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) did not cure Plaintiffs premature appeal from the Rule 8(a) dismissal. See Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 373 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We note that if we had jurisdiction, we would affirm, as the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a). DISMISSED. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(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.