NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES K. SONG; et al., No. 19-17450
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 5:18-cv-06283-LHK
ADAM E. ENGEL,
MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
AARON DRENBERG,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
ALEXA PETTINARI; MARK L.
PETTINARI,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 16, 2021**
San Francisco, California
*
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).
Before: SCHROEDER, M. SMITH, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants James K. Song, FaircapX, Inc., Mithrandir, Inc., Faircap
Partners, LLC, and Faircap Angels, Inc., and Appellant Adam E. Engel, appeal
various discovery rulings after Plaintiffs-Appellants voluntarily dismissed their case
without prejudice before the district court.1 Our jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
extends only to appeals from “final decisions.” We lack jurisdiction over this appeal
because a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is generally not a final judgment,
see Galaza v. Wolf, 954 F.3d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 2020) (“We have … ruled that a
voluntary dismissal without prejudice is ordinarily not a final judgment from which
the plaintiff may appeal.” (emphasis in original) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)), and no exception to that general rule applies here. See id. at 1272;
see also James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 2002).
Moreover, the discovery rulings challenged by appellants are not immediately
appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See Mohawk Indus., Inc. v.
Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 103, 113 (2009); Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527
U.S. 198, 200, 210 (1999); Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med. Ctr., 884 F.3d 1218, 1221 n.3,
1221–22 (9th Cir. 2018); Admiral Ins. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Arizona, 881
F.2d 1486, 1490 (9th Cir. 1989).
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them here only as
necessary.
2
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED.
3