Harshman v. Harshman
Daryl E. Harshman, AKA Daryl E. Harshman Eric J. Harshman, of Estate v. Diane P. Harshman Operating Engineers Pension Trust Operating Engineers Vacation-Holiday Savings Trust Operating Engineers Health & Welfare Fund
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Irma E. Gonzalez (district judge)
- Outcome
- dismissed — the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
52 F.3d 333 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Daryl E. HARSHMAN, aka Daryl E. Harshman; Eric J. Harshman, Executor of Estate, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Diane P. HARSHMAN; Operating Engineers Pension Trust;
Operating Engineers Vacation-Holiday Savings Trust; Operating Engineers Health & Welfare Fund, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 93-56463.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 1995.* Decided April 12, 1995.
1 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, CV-92-01388-IEG; Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding.
2 Before: NOONAN, O'SCANNLAIN, and, LEAVY, Circuit Judges 3 ORDER** 4 An order of partial summary judgment is not a final appealable order. Dannenberg v. Software Toolworks, Inc., 16 F.3d 1073, 1074-75 (9th Cir.1994); Cheng v. Commissioner, 878 F.2d 306, 309 (9th Cir.1989). The parties have not obtained Rule 54(b) certification, and their stipulation did not "finalize" the district court's order. Dannenberg, 16 F.3d at 1075. Consequently, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction.
* The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 34(a) and Ninth Cir.R. 34-4 ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3