From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Louie v. Carnevale

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 2, 1971
443 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1971)

Opinion

No. 26731.

June 2, 1971.

George Sing Louie, in pro. per.

Michael J. Brady, of Ropers, Majeski, Kohn, Bentley Wagner, Redwood City, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Before HAMLEY, KOELSCH and TRASK, Circuit Judges.


The plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion for inspection and copying under Rule 34, Fed.R.Civ.P.

The order being interlocutory, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 L.Ed. 686 (1906); Lampman v. United States District Court, 418 F.2d 215 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 919, 90 S.Ct. 926, 25 L.Ed.2d 100 (1970).

There is some doubt whether this appeal has been properly docketed. The ruling on this notice of appeal shall not relieve appellant of his duty to properly docket the appeal in the principal action as provided in Rule 12, Fed.R.App.P.


Summaries of

Louie v. Carnevale

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 2, 1971
443 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1971)
Case details for

Louie v. Carnevale

Case Details

Full title:George Sing LOUIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert CARNEVALE et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 2, 1971

Citations

443 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1971)

Citing Cases

Premium Service Corp. v. Sperry Hutchinson

Again, the order would lack finality. Louie v. Carnevale, 443 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1971). But these avenues for…

Southern California Edison Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Until the entry of a final judgment, any review of the order would be interlocutory and we would dismiss the…