Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8642690
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Anderson v. Big Apple Consulting, USA, Inc.
No. 8642690 · Decided November 27, 2006
No. 8642690·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
November 27, 2006
Citation
No. 8642690
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Big Apple Consulting USA, Inc., and Matthew Maguire (collectively “Big Apple”) appeal from the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction an action filed against them under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 . We do not have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) provides the procedure for appeal of an interlocutory order: *128 the district judge must certify the interlocutory order for appeal, and upon application within ten days of the certification order the court of appeals may in its discretion permit an appeal to be taken. Because Big Apple did not obtain leave to bring an appeal from the interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Lucas v. Natoli 936 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (court has no jurisdiction to reach issues of personal jurisdiction not certified for interlocutory appeal); Hughes v. Sharp, 476 F.2d 975, 975 (9th Cir.1973) (no jurisdiction when party did not seek leave to bring appeal of interlocutory order); cf. Go-Video, Inc. v. Akai Elec. Co., 885 F.2d 1406, 1408 (9th Cir.1989) (reviewing denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction when district court granted certification request, and court of appeals had agreed to hear interlocutory appeal). DISMISSED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Big Apple Consulting USA, Inc., and Matthew Maguire (collectively “Big Apple”) appeal from the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction an action filed against them under the Racketeer Influenced
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Big Apple Consulting USA, Inc., and Matthew Maguire (collectively “Big Apple”) appeal from the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction an action filed against them under the Racketeer Influenced
02§ 1292 (b) provides the procedure for appeal of an interlocutory order: *128 the district judge must certify the interlocutory order for appeal, and upon application within ten days of the certification order the court of appeals may in its
03Because Big Apple did not obtain leave to bring an appeal from the interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
04Natoli 936 F.2d 432, 433 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (court has no jurisdiction to reach issues of personal jurisdiction not certified for interlocutory appeal); Hughes v.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Big Apple Consulting USA, Inc., and Matthew Maguire (collectively “Big Apple”) appeal from the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction an action filed against them under the Racketeer Influenced
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Anderson v. Big Apple Consulting, USA, Inc. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on November 27, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8642690 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.