# Zucker v. Maxicare Health Plans Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · January 26, 1994 · 14 F.3d 477

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6929464

## Case

- **Full name:** Murray ZUCKER, and Salomon Brothers Inc. Montgomery Securities v. MAXICARE HEALTH PLANS INC. Fred W. Wasserman Pamela K. Anderson aka Pamela Wasserman, Defendants-Appellees Murray ZUCKER on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and Maxicare Health Plans Inc. Fred Wasserman Pamela K. Anderson aka Pamela K. Wasserman David M. Hallis Samuel L. Westover Gerald Zaid Charles W. Smith, III Randall Anderson Howard Freedland James A. McIntyre Alan Bloom Charles E. Lewis Peter J. Ratican v. ERNST & YOUNG, Successor-In-Interest to Ernst & Whinney, Objector-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 26, 1994
- **Citations:** 14 F.3d 477; 94 Daily Journal DAR 991; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 583; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 1247; 1994 WL 18440
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scannlain
- **Judges:** Norris, Scannlain, Wiggins
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6929464

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a district court’s order providing that it would become final five days after the filing of a joint notice was not a final judgment because the joint notice had not been filed and because the district court had taken no action indicating that the order was a final…
- finding that judgment which provided that it would become final five days after the filing of a joint notice was not “final” for purposes of appeal where no joint notice had been filed
- concluding that the judgment at issue was not final and the court did not have jurisdiction over the appeal based on the contingent nature of the judgment

## Opinion text

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I join fully in Judge Wiggins’ careful opinion and write separately only to emphasize the rule that parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon this court. Despite ample opportunity, the parties to this appeal never have satisfied the explicit conditions for finality in the district court’s order. We lack the authority to review that order until the parties comply with these conditions. Although the parties nevertheless may find it mutually convenient to proceed with this appeal, we are not free to disregard our lack of jurisdiction for the sake of expediency.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6929464. Public record. Not legal advice.