NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 05 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 13-16941 &
13-17089
Plaintiff - Appellee,
D.C. No. 1:02-cv-00022
v.
GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Guam
Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 19, 2015
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The United States brought this civil enforcement action against the
Government of Guam under the federal Clean Water Act to end unpermitted
discharges from Guam’s Ordot Dump landfill. More than ten years into the
litigation, nine years after the entry of a Consent Decree providing for closure of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ordot Dump, and six years after the district court appointed a receiver due to
Guam’s failure to comply with the Consent Decree, the territorial government
sought to replace the Guam Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) as its counsel
of record with a private law firm, Cabot Mantanona LLP (“the Cabot Firm”). The
district court at first denied most of the request, while permitting the Cabot Firm to
address the court and represent the territorial government as to certain matters.
Approximately five months later, however, the court granted full substitution of
counsel after it became aware of new facts demonstrating a breakdown of
communication between the Governor’s Office and the OAG.
Guam appeals from the district court’s orders partially denying substitution
of counsel, including orders entered on May 16, 2013, August 13, 2013, and
September 18, 2013. Guam also requests that this Court declare as void all orders
issued by the district court during the five-month period between the May 16
partial denial of substitution of counsel and the grant of full substitution in an order
entered October 29, 2013. None of those other orders are presently on appeal.
We lack jurisdiction to review the orders related to the partial denial of
substitution of counsel because those orders were not final for appellate purposes.
These orders, even taken together, do not constitute a “full adjudication of the
issues,” Nat’l Distrib. Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th
2
Cir. 1997), nor do they “resolve all of the issues in the post-judgment
proceedings,” Cordoza v. Pac. States Steel Corp., 320 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir.
2003). The district court did not completely adjudicate the issue as to whether the
OAG should be disqualified from representing Guam. The court left open key
questions about attorney-client privilege and the possibility that the OAG had a
conflict.
The actual relief sought by Guam in the current appeal is not the substitution
of counsel, as that was subsequently obtained in a later order by the district court.
Rather, Guam seeks a declaration that all other orders entered by the district court
during the five-month interim period are void. The arguments offered by Guam in
support of that relief appear very weak, both factually and legally, but we cannot
ultimately address them because we lack jurisdiction to review those orders.
The orders that Guam seeks to void are not on appeal before this Court. It
does not appear that Guam ever moved the district court to void these orders based
on the delay in obtaining the full substitution of counsel. Guam did file appeals
from at least some of the disputed orders, but the territorial government voluntarily
dismissed those appeals, so those disputed orders are not before us. Generally,
when seeking the review of a federal appellate court, a party must file a timely
notice of appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 3, and must pursue the appeal thereafter. This
3
requirement is jurisdictional; without a notice of appeal of a district court’s order,
this Court lacks jurisdiction to review that order. Nguyen v. Sw. Leasing & Rental,
Inc., 282 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, this Court may not review
the orders Guam seeks to void because appeals from those orders are not before us.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
4