Aalmuhammed v. Lee

162 F.3d 1167, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 34158, 1998 WL 764448
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 29, 1998
Docket97-55403
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 162 F.3d 1167 (Aalmuhammed v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 162 F.3d 1167, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 34158, 1998 WL 764448 (9th Cir. 1998).

Opinion

162 F.3d 1167

Jefri AALMUHAMMED, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Spike LEE; Forty Acres and a Mule Filmworks, Inc.; By any
Means Necessary Cinema, Inc.; Warner Brothers, a division of
Time-Warner Entertainment LP; Victor Company of Japan, Ltd.;
Largo International NV; Largo Entertainment, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-55403.
D.C. No. CV-95-07885-JSL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 5, 1998.
Decided Oct. 29, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Central District of California J. Spencer Letts, District Judge, Presiding.

Before CANBY, NOONAN and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

We are compelled to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order and judgment appealed from says "The Court may amend or amplify this order with a more specific statement of the grounds for its decision." We held in National Distrib., Agency v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 432 (9th Cir.1997), that the identical language in another judgment by the same district judge prevented finality because "the court left open the possibility that the court might change its ruling" and no separate final judgment was subsequently entered. We are unable to distinguish the two cases.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. Because this panel has prepared and heard argument on the merits, any subsequent appeal of this case shall be referred to this panel for consideration. The district court is requested to "amend or amplify" its order, or enter final judgment without amendment or amplification, within 90 days.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wahab v. Wahab
D. Oregon, 2024
(PC) Edward Thomas v. Pfeiffer
E.D. California, 2021
Webb v. State
2017 WY 108 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2017)
Gottschalk v. City & County of San Francisco
964 F. Supp. 2d 1147 (N.D. California, 2013)
Bryan v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
35 F. App'x 591 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Rapier v. Union City Non-Ferrous, Inc.
197 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (S.D. Ohio, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 F.3d 1167, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 34158, 1998 WL 764448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aalmuhammed-v-lee-ca9-1998.