AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendants sought to appeal an order denying their motions to dismiss in a case involving JP Morgan Chase Bank as the Plaintiff. The specifics of the underlying dispute leading to the motions to dismiss are not detailed in the provided text.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that the district court's order denying their motions to dismiss was incorrect and sought to have the matter proceed on the merits as an interlocutory appeal (para 3).
• Plaintiff: Responded to the Defendants' memorandum in opposition and motion to amend the docketing statement, although specific arguments are not detailed in the text (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss is a final, appealable order.
• Whether the matter should proceed as an interlocutory appeal despite lacking the requisite certification.

Disposition

• The appeal was summarily dismissed due to the order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss not being a final, appealable order and the absence of certification for an interlocutory appeal (para 5).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge concurring):
  The Court concluded that the order denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss did not constitute a final, appealable order under existing legal standards. It referenced several precedents to support this conclusion, noting that denials of motions to dismiss are generally not considered final and appealable. The Defendants' attempt to have the matter proceed as an interlocutory appeal was also rejected due to the lack of necessary certification from the district court. The Court emphasized procedural compliance with the requirements for interlocutory appeals and, in the absence of such compliance, determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Defendants' challenge to the district court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed summarily (paras 2-5).