United States v. 2020-08-10 | 19-16417 | JOSEPH SUNDE V. NEV. DIV. & DOC. SERVS., INC. | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: JOSEPH MICHAEL SUNDE, AKA
J. Michael Sunde; VIKTORIYA SOKOL
SUNDE,

Debtors,
______________________________

JOSEPH MICHAEL SUNDE, AKA J.
Michael Sunde; VIKTORIYA SOKOL
SUNDE,

Appellants,

v.

NEVADA DIVORCE & DOCUMENT
SERVICES, INC.,

Appellee.

No. 19-16417

D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00458-MMD

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 10, 2020
**

San Francisco, California

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

AUG 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit
Judges.

Joseph Michael Sunde and Viktoriya Sokol Sunde (Sundes) appeal pro se
from the district court’s dismissal of their appeals from the proceedings in the
bankruptcy court. The parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them
here. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Dannenberg v. Software
Toolworks, Inc., 16 F.3d 1073, 1074 n.1 (9th Cir. 1994) (“we have an independent
duty to determine whether appellate jurisdiction exists,” even though a motions
panel denied motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction).
Sundes’ notice of appeal identified as the only order on appeal the district
court’s July 5, 2019 post-judgment order. That is not a final appealable order
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court merely reiterated its prior ruling that it
lacks jurisdiction, performed the housekeeping task of dismissing all pending
motions as moot pursuant to its previous ruling, and precluded further briefing in
the cases. See Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d
892, 898 (9th Cir. 2001) (“mere ministerial” post-judgment orders are not
appealable); United States v. Ray, 375 F.3d 980, 986 n.7 (9th Cir. 2004) (appeal is
“not available” for “an administrative or ministerial order”).
To the extent that Sundes seek to challenge the district court’s February 13,
2019 order dismissing the cases for lack of jurisdiction, we do not consider the
challenge because Sundes’ July 16, 2019 notice of appeal was untimely as to that

3
order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (a notice appeal “must be filed ... within 30
days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from”). The untimely notice of
appeal deprives us of jurisdiction. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937
(9th Cir. 2007).
DISMISSED.