Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Harmston v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, No. 09-16562

By FindLaw Staff | Last updated on

Appeal from Sanctions Order Dismissed

In Harmston v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, No. 09-16562, plaintiff's appeal from the district court's order sanctioning plaintiff and his attorney for violating the court's discovery protective order, the court dismissed the appeal where, because the district court's remand order constituted a final order, plaintiff's last day to appeal came 180 days later, on April 17, 2009, and thus the appeal was untimely.


As the court wrote:  "The district court sanctioned police officer Andrew Cohen and attorney Waukeen Q. McCoy (collectively, "Cohen") in 2007 for violating the court's discovery protective order. After the district court remanded the case to state court in 2008, and after the state court entered judgment, Cohen appealed the district court's sanctions order in 2009. We are first asked to decide whether the remand order was a "final" order for purposes of permitting Cohen to appeal the sanctions order."

Related Resources

Was this helpful?

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard