James Song v. Aaron Drenberg

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES K. SONG; et al., No. 21-16933

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 5:18-cv-06283-LHK

ADAM E. ENGEL, MEMORANDUM* Appellant,

v.

AARON DRENBERG,

Defendant-Appellee, and

ALEXA PETTINARI; MARK L. PETTINARI,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 16, 2023**

* 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).

Before: WALLACE, D.W. NELSON, and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs-Appellants James K. Song, FaircapX, Inc., Mithrandir, Inc., Faircap Partners, LLC, and Faircap Angels, Inc., and Appellant Adam E. Engel appeal from various discovery rulings after Plaintiffs-Appellants voluntarily dismissed their case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before the district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 extends only to appeals from “final decisions.” In dismissing Plaintiff-Appellants’ earlier appeal, we held that “[w]e lack jurisdiction over this appeal because a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is generally not a final judgment, and no exception to that general rule applies here.” Song v. Drenberg, 850 Fed. App’x 591, 592 (9th Cir. 2021) (unpublished) (citations omitted); see also Galaza v. Wolf, 954 F.3d 1267, 1270–72 (9th Cir. 2020). We also held that the previously challenged discovery rulings were not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Id. We decline to revisit these rulings. See United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[A] court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by the same court[.]” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Similarly, the discovery rulings issued after we dismissed the previous *3 appeal are not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 204, 210 (1999) (holding that “a sanctions order imposed on an attorney is not a ‘final decision’ under § 1291” and is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine); Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1221 n.3 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[A]n order to produce discovery isn’t immediately appealable. The subsequent sanctions order . . . [is] likewise interlocutory and non-appealable until entry of final judgment.” (citations omitted)); Admiral Ins. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 881 F.2d 1486, 1490 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Discovery orders are not final appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and courts have refused interlocutory review of such orders under the collateral order doctrine.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.