Texte intégral
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: APPLICATION OF KARAM
SALAH AL DIN AWNI AL SADEQ
AND STOKOE PARTNERSHIP
SOLICITORS,
______________________________
KARAM SALAH AL DIN AWNI AL
SADEQ AND STOKOE PARTNERSHIP
SOLICITORS,
Appellant,
v.
DECHERT LLP; et al.,
Appellees.
No. 21-16126
D.C. No. 3:20-mc-80224-SK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Sallie Kim, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 19, 2022
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, GOULD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
FILED
FEB 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
-- 1 of 2 --
Appellants Karam Salah Al Din Awni Al Sadeq and Stokoe Partnership
Solicitors appeal from a magistrate judge’s denial of (1) their ex parte application
for an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to conduct discovery for use in foreign
proceedings, and (2) their motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
We dismiss the appeal and remand to the district court.
Appellants’ § 1782 application was assigned to a magistrate judge without
referral from a district judge. The magistrate judge issued an order denying the
application. Appellants moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, and
the magistrate judge issued an order summarily denying the motion.
Appellants concede in their supplemental briefing to this court that neither of
the magistrate judge’s orders is final and therefore appealable. No district court
judge ever acted on either order. See Ashker v. Newsom, 968 F.3d 975, 980–81,
985 (9th Cir. 2020); 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)–(c), 1291 (authorizing district judges, not
courts of appeal, to review non-final magistrate judge determinations where parties
did not consent to magistrate jurisdiction). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review
the appeal.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED.
2
-- 2 of 2 --