Octavio Sanchez v. Ghost Management Group, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 26, 2021
• Docket: 19-56267
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OCTAVIO SANCHEZ, DBA Weedmenu, No. 19-56267

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:19-cv-00442-AG-KES

v. MEMORANDUM* GHOST MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, DBA Weedmaps, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

VIRTUAL SUPPORT, LLC,

Defendant.

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

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, 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). Octavio Sanchez appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his

claims against defendant Ghost Management Group, LLC, arising from a

trademark dispute. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

A review of the record and the response to this court’s February 22, 2021

order to show cause demonstrate that the court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal

because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 54(b) (“[T]he court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more,

but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that

there is no just reason for delay.”); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir.

1981) (order is not appealable unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties, or

judgment is entered in compliance with Rule 54(b)). Consequently, this appeal is

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a timely notice of appeal

from any final order or judgment, or a judgment entered in compliance with Rule

54(b), subsequently entered by the district court.

DISMISSED.

2 19-56267