explaining that "[a] final decision is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- explaining that "[a] final decision is one that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- holding that sanctions orders under Rule 9011 are not appealable collateral orders
- "[W]e are bound by our [previous] decision ..., and as a three judge panel, we cannot overrule it.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
QUIST, Senior District Judge,
concurring:
All judges on the panel, including the undersigned, agree that Ninth Circuit precedent, particularly Cannon v. Hawaii Corp. (In re Hawaii Corp.), 796 F.2d 1139 (9th Cir.1986), requires this Court to dismiss this appeal because appellants “are unable to satisfy the threshold requirement of appellate jurisdiction.” In my judgment, once appellants fail to satisfy this threshold issue, the case is concluded — subject, of course, to whether the Ninth Circuit revisits the continuing viability of In re Hawaii Corp. As to whether the rule of In re Hawaii Corp. should be revisited or changed is not for me to say. If the rule of In re Hawaii Corp. is changed en banc, the issue of appellate jurisdiction can be revisited under the facts of this particular case, which are accurately set forth in Part I of Judge Ikuta’s Opinion.