NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VERA DRAGICEVICH, No. 13-56568
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-08192-ABC-
MAN
v.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., MEMORANDUM*
individually and as successor by merger to
Chase Home Finance LLC; CALIFORNIA
RECONVEYANCE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
VERA DRAGICEVICH, No. 14-55177
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-08192-ABC-
MAN
v.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
individually and as successor by merger to
Chase Home Finance LLC; CALIFORNIA
RECONVEYANCE COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Argued and Submitted November 5, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges and DANIEL,** Senior District
Judge.
Plaintiff appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of JP
Morgan Chase Bank and the district court’s denial of her motion to extend time to
file an appeal. We dismiss the merits appeal as untimely filed, and we affirm the
district court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)
order. We also dissolve the October 30, 2015 injunction.
1. In No. 13-56568, which is the appeal of the summary judgment, we
dismiss the appeal as untimely filed. The docket sheet for this matter shows that
the notice of appeal was “filed” (as well as entered on the docket) on
“09/06/2013,” even though the document was dated September 3, 2013. A timely
notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205,
214 (2007).
2. In No. 14-55177, which is the appeal from the district court’s denial of
Plaintiff’s Rule 4(a)(5) motion, we affirm. We review a district court’s denial of a
motion to extend time to file an appeal, as well as the application of its own local
**
The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Colorado, sitting by designation.
2
rules, for abuse of discretion. Prof’l Programs Grp. v. Dep’t of Commerce, 29
F.3d 1349, 1353 (9th Cir. 1994); Oregon v. Champion Int’l Corp., 680 F.2d 1300,
1301 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). The district court permissibly relied on the
court’s strict requirement that parties adhere to Central District of California Rule
7-3; Plaintiff admittedly did not comply with this Rule.
3. This court issued an injunction on October 30, 2015, enjoining
Defendants from selling the property at issue in this case, pending oral argument
and further order from this court. Because we deny relief in this case, we hereby
ORDER that the injunction be dissolved.
Appeal in No. 13-56568 DISMISSED; in No. 14-55177 AFFIRMED;
injunction DISSOLVED.
3