Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)

Citation
Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
Parent Document
Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
Effective Date
2004-01-26

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text

827 chars
22
Under WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc), Edwards was unable to appeal the dismissal of any of her claims for which leave to amend was denied until the district court entered a final judgment dismissing them. See also Webb v. Ada County, 285 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir.2002) (explaining the need for a separate document constituting a final judgment before appeal may be taken). She apparently felt that prompt appeal of six of her claims was more important than revising the seventh and attempting to add state constitutional causes of action, and so chose to take her chances that we would find the RICO claim viable as pled. Edwards's choice was all the more understandable in light of the district court's admonition that any amended RICO claim would be scrutinized under Rule 11.