BRIAN CONNELLY; KEITH MERRITT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN CONNELLY; KEITH MERRITT,
on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
HILTON GRAND VACATIONS
COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-55431
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00599-JLS-KSC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted on May 5, 2016
Withdrawn from Submission on February 8, 2017
Resubmitted on July 17, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, W. FLETCHER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JUL 17 2017
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 --

After the district court denied a motion for class certification, the parties
stipulated to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiffs appeal the denial of
class certification.
The Supreme Court recently held that a voluntary dismissal of this sort does
not qualify as a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Microsoft
Corp. v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 1702, 1715 (2017) (“Plaintiffs in putative class actions
cannot transform a tentative interlocutory order into a final judgment within the
meaning of § 1291 simply by dismissing their claims with prejudice . . . .”)
(internal citations omitted). We DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
This case is resubmitted concurrently with the filing of this disposition.
2

-- 2 of 2 --