Stephanie O'Connor v. National Default Servicing Cor , 667 F. App'x 242 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHANIE O’CONNOR, No. 14-16773
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00274-MMD-
WGC
v.
NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING MEMORANDUM*
CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Stephanie O’Connor appeals pro se from the district court’s order expunging
a notice of lis pendens in her diversity action. We dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Although O’Connor timely appealed from the order granting defendant’s
motion to expunge the lis pendens filed in this action, O’Connor does not seek
review of that order.
To the extent that O’Connor seeks to challenge the dismissal of her claims
and the denial of her motion to remand, we lack jurisdiction because the district
court’s February 10, 2014 order is a final order, and O’Connor failed to file a
notice of appeal within 180 days of February 10, 2014. See Chapman v. Deutsche
Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 651 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2011) (an order dismissing
the complaint rather than dismissing the action may be considered final and
appealable “if it appears that the district court intended the dismissal to dispose of
the action” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(7) (setting forth time for filing a notice of appeal when the district court
fails to enter a separate judgment); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food &
Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a
non-waivable jurisdictional requirement. . . . [E]ven if the district court does not set
forth the judgment on a separate document, an appealable final order is considered
entered when 150 days have run from the time the final order is docketed.”).
DISMISSED.
2 14-16773