Ratliff v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. et al

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 35 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LONNIE RATLIFF,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-02155-EMC

v.
MORTGAGE STORE FINANCIAL, INC.,
et al.,

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Docket No. 35

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Defendants.
13

Plaintiff Lonnie Ratliff, Jr., filed this foreclosure-related action against multiple entities.

14

Previously, four of those entities moved to dismiss, namely, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.;

15

Homesales, Inc.; EMC Mortgage, LLC; and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The

16

Court granted the motion in an order issued on July 6, 2017. The dismissal was with prejudice.

17

See Docket No. 25 (order). Currently pending before the Court is Mr. Ratliff‟s motion for an

18

extension of time to file a notice of appeal with respect to the Court‟s July 6 order.

19

Mr. Ratliff‟s motion is DENIED without prejudice. No final judgment has been entered in

20

this case because, even though the claims against the above four defendants have been resolved,

21

there are still claims pending against other defendants. Furthermore, neither Mr. Ratliff nor the

22

four defendants have asked for entry of a final judgment as to the four defendants pursuant to

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (providing that, “[w]hen multiple

24

parties are involved [in an action], the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or

25

more, but fewer than all, . . . parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just

26

reason for delay[;] [o]therwise, any order or other decision . . . that adjudicates fewer than all . . .

27

the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action”). In the absence of a

28

final judgment, the time to file a notice of appeal has not been triggered. See Martinez v. Aero

1

Caribbean, 577 Fed. Appx. 682 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that, under Ҥ 1291, we have jurisdiction

2

over appeals from „final judgment[s] that dispose[] of all claims with respect to all parties‟”);

3

United States v. Ettrick Wood Prods., Inc., 916 F.2d 1211, 1217 (7th Cir. 1990) (stating that “[t]he

4

only way the district court‟s November 14 judgment dismissing Brovold and Folkedahl could be

5

final, and the Bank‟s notice of appeal effective, is if the court properly entered judgment under

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)”; “[a]bsent proper entry of judgment under Rule 54(b), an order that

7

determines one claim in a multi-claim case, or disposes of all claims against one or more parties in

8

a multi-party case, is not final and appealable”).

9

This order disposes of Docket No. 35.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15

Dated: August 22, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2