Gregory Richardson v. First Centennial Mortg. Corp. ( 2021 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 2 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY RICHARDSON, an No. 19-55281
individual,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellant, 5:17-cv-01944-JVS-SP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FIRST CENTENNIAL MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation
doing business in California; JOSEPH
HOWINGTON, an individual; TRACY
ZHANG, an individual; DOES, 1 through
100, inclusive; DANE MCCLAIN, an
individual,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 29, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Gregory Richardson appeals pro se from an order denying reconsideration of
an order dismissing his claims against two defendants, Dane McClain and First
Centennial Mortgage Corporation (First Centennial), without leave to amend. We
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Symantec Corp. v. Glob. Impact, Inc., 559
F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 2009).
The district court’s dismissal orders were not final because they did not
dispose of all of Richardson’s claims. See Prellwitz v. Sisto, 657 F.3d 1035, 1038
(9th Cir. 2011); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Accordingly, the district court’s denial of
Richardson’s motion for reconsideration was also not final. See Branson v. City of
Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1990).
“All pending motions are denied as moot.” In re Suspension of Pipkins, 154
F.3d 1009, 1010 (9th Cir. 1998).
DISMISSED.
2