U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2010

S'klallam v. Lummi Indian Tribe

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided October 14, 2010 · Kozinski, Thomas, Smith

400 F. App'x 147

Counsel

Philip Hugh Lynch, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Peter C. Monson, Esquire, U.S. Dept, of Justice, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff., Stephen Hayes Suagee, General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Port Ange-les, WA, Robert Campbell Troyer, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Denver, CO, Lauren Patricia Rasmussen, Esquire, Law Offices of Lauren P. Rasmussen, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants., Mason D. Morisset, Morisset, Schlosser, Jozwiak & McGaw, Seattle, WA, for Interested party-Appellee., Robert K. Costello, Deputy Attorney General, Michael S. Grossmann, Joseph Earl Shorin, III, Esquire, Fronda Colleen Woods, Assistants Attorney General, AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendant., Harry Laurence Johnsen, Daniel Alan Raas, Raas, Johnsen & Stuen, P.S., Mary Michelle Neil, Lummi Indian Nation Office of the Reservation Attorney, Bellingham, WA, for Defendant-Appellee., John Howard Bell, Samuel J. Stiltner, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Tacoma, WA, John Arum, Richard M. Berley, Brian C. Gruber, Marc D. Slonim, Counsel, Ziontz Chestnut Varnell Berley & Slonim, John C. Sledd, Phillip E. Katzen, Kanji & Kat-zen, PLLC, Gregory M. O’Leary, Summit Law Group, PLLC, Eric Nielsen, Nielsen Broman & Koch, PLLC, O. Yale Lewis, III, Law Offices of O. Yale Lewis III, LLC, Harold Chesnin, Law Office of Harold Chesnin, Seattle, WA, Michelle Hito-mi Hansen, Esquire, Office of Tribal Attorney, Suquamish, WA, Tim Weaver, Law Offices of Tim Weaver, Yakima, WA, Robert L. Otsea, II, Chief Counsel, Office of the Tribal Attorney, Auburn, WA, Fawn R. Sharp, Esquire, Quinault Indian Nation, Taholah, WA, William Charles Tobin, Jr., Esquire, Bill Tobin, Attorney at Law, Va-shon, WA, Alix Foster, James M. Jannetta, Office of the Tribal Attorney, La Conner, WA, David Stoller Hawkins, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe, Sedro Wooley, WA, for Interested parties.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Our prior decision in this dispute sets forth the appropriate standard for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291: “[A] ruling is final for purposes of § 1291 if it (1) is a full adjudication of the issues, and (2) clearly evidences the judge’s intention that it be the court’s final act in the matter.” United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443, 448 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Nat’l Distribution Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1997)). The current appeal satisfies neither requirement. The district court denied the motion “without prejudice to renewal as a new subproceeding” and even retained paper copies of the parties’ pleadings “so that [their] effort need not be duplicated.” The district court also explained that the parties’ substantive dispute “remains to be determined.” Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.