Narrative Opinion Summary
Leigh-Davis Glass appeals pro se from a district court order that dismissed her action under the Truth in Lending Act and various consumer protection laws without prejudice. The appellate court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the dismissal order is not final, referencing Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 870 (9th Cir. 2004). Consequently, the court does not address Glass’s motion to refer the matter to the Judicial Council. The dismissal is deemed not appropriate for publication and holds no precedential value except as specified under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appeal Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the district court's order was not considered final, which is required for the appellate court to have jurisdiction.
Reasoning: The appellate court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the dismissal order is not final, referencing Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 870 (9th Cir. 2004).
Non-Final Orders and Appellate Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court established that orders which are not final cannot be appealed, referencing existing case law and acknowledging the limits of appellate review.
Reasoning: The appellate court dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the dismissal order is not final, referencing Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 870 (9th Cir. 2004).
Non-Publication of Dismissal Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision not to publish the dismissal order indicates that it holds no precedential value, aligning with specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: The dismissal is deemed not appropriate for publication and holds no precedential value except as specified under 9th Cir. R. 36-3.