Gregory Richardson v. First Centennial Mortg. Corp.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 2, 2021
• Docket: 19-55281
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 2 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY RICHARDSON, an No. 19-55281 individual, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 5:17-cv-01944-JVS-SP

v. MEMORANDUM* FIRST CENTENNIAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation doing business in California; JOSEPH HOWINGTON, an individual; TRACY ZHANG, an individual; DOES, 1 through 100, inclusive; DANE MCCLAIN, an individual,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 29, 2021** San Francisco, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Gregory Richardson appeals pro se from an order denying reconsideration of

an order dismissing his claims against two defendants, Dane McClain and First

Centennial Mortgage Corporation (First Centennial), without leave to amend. We

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Symantec Corp. v. Glob. Impact, Inc., 559

F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 2009).

The district court’s dismissal orders were not final because they did not

dispose of all of Richardson’s claims. See Prellwitz v. Sisto, 657 F.3d 1035, 1038

(9th Cir. 2011); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Accordingly, the district court’s denial of

Richardson’s motion for reconsideration was also not final. See Branson v. City of

Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1990).

“All pending motions are denied as moot.” In re Suspension of Pipkins, 154

F.3d 1009, 1010 (9th Cir. 1998).

DISMISSED.