Sperring v. LLR, Inc., No. 19-56295 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit dismissed based on lack of appellate jurisdiction plaintiffs' appeal from the district court's order compelling arbitration of a putative class action alleging that LuLaRoe operated an illegal endless-chain pyramid scheme in violation of California and federal law.
The panel held that Langere v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, 983 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2020), was controlling under these circumstances. In this case, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their action with prejudice in an attempt to obtain an appealable final judgment following an order compelling arbitration. Furthermore, as in Langere, this tactic no longer creates appellate jurisdiction. The panel explained that, contrary to plaintiffs' contention, it is of no consequence that plaintiffs moved for a court order dismissing their action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), while Langere unilaterally dismissed his action under Rule 41(a)(1). Finally, plaintiffs' contention that Langere is inapplicable because the panel has jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(3) is without merit.
Court Description: California Insurance Law. The panel dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction an appeal from the district court’s order compelling arbitration of a putative class action. The panel held that Langere v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, 983 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2020), controlled the outcome of this case. Appellants, like Langere, voluntarily dismissed their action with prejudice in an attempt to obtain an appealable final judgment following an order compelling arbitration, and this tactic no longer creates appellate jurisdiction. The panel further held that it was of no consequence that appellants moved for a court order dismissing their action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), while Langere unilaterally dismissed his action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Finally, the panel held that appellants’ contention, that there was appellate jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3), was without merit. SPERRING V. LLR 3
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.