Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 1 of 128
`
`Exhibit A: Docket & Memos
`Gjovik v. Apple Inc. (25-2028)
`Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
`
`

`

`4/8/25, 8:58 AM
`
`ACMS ShowDoc
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 2 of 128
`
`ACMS Docket Report
`United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
`
`Court of Appeals Docket #: 25-2028
`Nature of Suit: 3470 Civil (Rico)
`Gjovik v. Apple Inc.
`Appeal From: San Francisco, Northern California
`Fee Status: Paid
`
`Case Type Information:
`1) Civil
`2) Private
`3)
`Originating Court Information:
`District: Northern District of California : 3:23-cv-04597-EMC
`Trial Judge: Edward M. Chen, District Judge
`Court Reporter: Kendra Ann Steppler
`Court Reporter: Kristen Melen
`Date Filed: 09/07/2023
`Date Order/Judgment:
`03/23/2025
`Prior Cases:
`
`Date Order/Judgment EOD:
`03/23/2025
`
`Docketed: 03/27/2025
`
`Date NOA Filed:
`03/25/2025
`
`Date Rec'd COA:
`03/25/2025
`
`Current Cases:
`
`ASHLEY M. GJOVIK
` Plaintiff - Appellant
`
`APPLE INC.
` Defendant - Appellee
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik
`[Pro Se]
`Direct: 415-964-6272
`Email: ashleymgjovik@protonmail.com
`2108 N Street
`Suite 4553
`Sacramento, CA 95816
`
`
`
`Kathryn Mantoan
`Direct: 415-773-5700
`Email: kmantoan@orrick.com
`[Retained]
`Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Jessica R. Perry
`Direct: 650-614-7400
`Email: jperry@orrick.com
`[Retained]
`Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`Melinda S. Riechert
`Direct: 650-614-7400
`Email: mriechert@orrick.com
`[Retained]
`Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`Ryan Booms
`Direct: 213-629-2020
`Email: rbooms@orrick.com
`[Retained]
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
`355 S Grand Avenue
`
`https://ca9-showdoc.azurewebsites.us/full-docket/f3138983-8df4-4361-97d4-4aafb99aa85c
`
`1/4
`
`

`

`4/8/25, 8:58 AM
`
`ACMS ShowDoc
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 3 of 128
`Suite 2700
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`https://ca9-showdoc.azurewebsites.us/full-docket/f3138983-8df4-4361-97d4-4aafb99aa85c
`
`2/4
`
`

`

`ACMS ShowDoc
`4/8/25, 8:58 AM
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 4 of 128
`ASHLEY M. GJOVIK,
`
` Plaintiff - Appellant,
`
` v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Defendant - Appellee.
`
`https://ca9-showdoc.azurewebsites.us/full-docket/f3138983-8df4-4361-97d4-4aafb99aa85c
`
`3/4
`
`

`

`4/8/25, 8:58 AM
`
`03/27/2025
`
`2
`2 pg. 288 KB
`
`ACMS ShowDoc
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 5 of 128
`CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:23-cv-04597-EMC has been
`03/27/2025 1
`received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
`The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 25-2028 has been assigned to this case. All communications
`with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to
`ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your
`contact information changes.
`Resources Available
`For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the
`Case Opening Information (for attorneys and pro se litigants) and review the Appellate Practice Guide.
`Attorneys should consider contacting the court's Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief
`and argument. [Entered: 03/27/2025 04:01 PM]
`SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 5/6/2025, Appeal
`Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellee) 6/5/2025. For appeal no. 25-2028, 3:23-cv-04597-
`EMC. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.
`Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic
`dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 03/27/2025 04:15 PM]
`MOTION to Consolidate filed by Appellant Ashley M. Gjovik. [Entered: 03/28/2025 04:57 AM]
`
`03/28/2025
`
`3
`5 pg. 192 KB
`
`03/28/2025
`
`4
`37 pg. 14212 KB
`
`04/07/2025
`
`04/07/2025
`
`5
`1122 pg. 501229 KB
`
`6
`372 pg. 183517 KB
`
`04/07/2025
`
`7
`75 pg. 29507 KB
`
`04/07/2025 8
`
`MOTION to Clarify or Amend Court Order or Disposition filed by Appellant Ashley M. Gjovik. [Entered:
`03/28/2025 04:59 AM]
`
`MOTION to Stay Proceedings in this Court filed by Appellee Apple Inc.. [Entered: 04/07/2025 04:54 PM]
`
`RESPONSE to Motion to Consolidate (DE 3) filed by Appellee Apple Inc.. [Entered: 04/07/2025 04:59
`PM]
`
`RESPONSE to Motion to Clarify or Amend Court Order or Disposition (DE 4) filed by Appellee Apple
`Inc.. [Entered: 04/07/2025 05:03 PM]
`
`NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jeffrey Todd Quilici for Appellee Apple Inc.. [Entered: 04/07/2025 05:07
`PM]
`
`https://ca9-showdoc.azurewebsites.us/full-docket/f3138983-8df4-4361-97d4-4aafb99aa85c
`
`4/4
`
`

`

`4/8/25, 8:58 AM
`
`ACMS ShowDoc
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 6 of 128
`
`4 Documents are attached to this filing
`
`Document
`1
`
`Description
`25-2028 007-01 - Response to Motion to Clarify or Amend Court Order or Disposition - Response.pdf
`
`Pages
`8
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`25-2028 007-02 - Response to Motion to Clarify or Amend Court Order or Disposition - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 007-03 - Response to Motion to Clarify or Amend Court Order or Disposition - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 007-04 - Response to Motion to Clarify or Amend Court Order or Disposition - Exhibit.pdf
`
`5
`
`35
`
`27
`
`75 pages
`Include Page Numbers
`Combine Accessible Documents
`
`https://ca9-showdoc.azurewebsites.us/documents-list/5640bf76-0c14-f011-998a-001dd806295a
`
`1/1
`
`

`

`4/8/25, 8:59 AM
`
`ACMS ShowDoc
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 7 of 128
`
`10 Documents are attached to this filing
`
`Document
`1
`
`Description
`25-2028 006-01 - Response to Motion to Consolidate - Response.pdf
`
`Pages
`16
`
`10
`
`25-2028 006-10 - Response to Motion to Consolidate - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 006-02 - Response to Motion to Consolidate - Exhibit.pdf
`
`3
`
`5
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`25-2028 006-03 - Response to Motion to Consolidate - Exhibit.pdf
`
`158
`
`25-2028 006-04 - Response to Motion to Consolidate - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 006-05 - Response to Motion to Consolidate - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 006-06 - Response to Motion to Consolidate - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 006-07 - Response to Motion to Consolidate - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 006-08 - Response to Motion to Consolidate - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 006-09 - Response to Motion to Consolidate - Exhibit.pdf
`
`35
`
`42
`
`4
`
`79
`
`3
`
`27
`
`372 pages
`Include Page Numbers
`Combine Accessible Documents
`
`https://ca9-showdoc.azurewebsites.us/documents-list/6ac973c2-0b14-f011-998a-001dd806295a
`
`1/1
`
`

`

`4/8/25, 8:59 AM
`
`ACMS ShowDoc
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 8 of 128
`
`16 Documents are attached to this filing
`
`Document
`1
`
`Description
`25-2028 005-01 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Motion.pdf
`
`Pages
`27
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`25-2028 005-10 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 005-11 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 005-12 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 005-13 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 005-14 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 005-15 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 005-16 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 005-02 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 005-03 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf
`
`79
`
`44
`
`18
`
`3
`
`27
`
`5
`
`3
`
`30
`
`35
`
`25-2028 005-04 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf 158
`
`25-2028 005-05 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf 336
`
`25-2028 005-06 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf 201
`
`25-2028 005-07 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 005-08 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf
`
`25-2028 005-09 - Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court - Exhibit.pdf
`
`5
`
`76
`
`75
`
`1122 pages
`Include Page Numbers
`Combine Accessible Documents
`
`https://ca9-showdoc.azurewebsites.us/documents-list/2f15c4a4-0b14-f011-998a-001dd80b194b
`
`1/1
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 9 of 128
`
`Office of the Clerk
`United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
`Post Office Box 193939
`San Francisco, California 94119-3939
`415-355-8000
`
`
`
`FILED
`
`
`
`
`Molly C. Dwyer
`Clerk of Court
`
`
`MAR 27 2025
`
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`
`DOCKETING NOTICE
`
`25-2028
`Docket Number:
`Originating Case Number: 3:23-cv-04597-EMC
`Short Title:
`Gjovik v. Apple Inc.
`
`Dear Appellant/Counsel
`
`A copy of your notice of appeal/petition has been received in the Clerk's office of the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket
`number shown above has been assigned to this case. You must indicate this Court of
`Appeals docket number whenever you communicate with this court regarding this case.
`
`Motions filed along with the notice of appeal in the district court are not automatically
`transferred to this court for filing. Any motions seeking relief from this court must be
`separately filed in this court's docket.
`
`Please furnish this docket number immediately to the court reporter if you place an order,
`or have placed an order, for portions of the trial transcripts. The court reporter will need
`this docket number when communicating with this court.
`
`You must file a Disclosure Statement (Form 34) within 14 days of this notice if your
`case: (1) involves a non-governmental corporation, association, joint venture, partnership,
`limited liability company, or similar entity; (2) is a bankruptcy case; (3) is a criminal case
`involving an organizational victim; or (4) involves review of state court proceedings. See
`Ninth Circuit Rule 26-1.1.
`
`Failure of the appellant to comply with the time schedule order may result in
`dismissal of the appeal.
`
`Please read the enclosed materials carefully.
`
`
`
` Case: 25-2028, 03/27/2025, DktEntry: 2.1, Page 1 of 2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 10 of 128
`
`Office of the Clerk
`United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
`Post Office Box 193939
`San Francisco, California 94119-3939
`415-355-8000
`
`
`
`
`Molly C. Dwyer
`Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`
`
`TIME SCHEDULE ORDER
`
`25-2028
`Docket Number:
`Originating Case Number: 3:23-cv-04597-EMC
`Case Title:
`Gjovik v. Apple Inc.
`
`Tuesday, May 6, 2025
`Ashley M. Gjovik
`
`Thursday, June 5, 2025
`Apple Inc.
`
`Appeal Opening Brief (No
`Transcript Due)
`
`Appeal Answering Brief (No
`Transcript Due)
`
`If there were reported hearings, the parties shall designate and, if necessary, cross-
`designate the transcripts pursuant to 9th Cir. R. 10-3. If there were no reported hearings,
`the transcript deadlines do not apply.
`
`The optional reply may be filed within 21 days of service of the answering brief. See
`Fed. R. App. P. 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.
`
`Failure of the appellant to comply with the time schedule order may result in
`automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.
`
` Case: 25-2028, 03/27/2025, DktEntry: 2.1, Page 2 of 2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 11 of 128
`
`Case No. 24-6058; 25-2028
`
`In the United States Court of Appeals
`
`For the Ninth Circuit
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik , an individual ,
`
`Plaintiff -Appellant
`
`v.
`
`Apple Inc., a corporation ,
`
`Defendant-Appellee .
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`
`for the Northern District of California
`
`No. 3:23-CV-04597
`
`The Honorable Judge Edward M. Chen
`
`Appellant’s Motion to Consolidate Cases
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, JD
`In Propria Persona
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553
`Sacramento, CA, 95816
`(408) 883-4428
`
`legal@ashleygjovik.com
`
` Case: 25-2028, 03/28/2025, DktEntry: 3.1, Page 1 of 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 12 of 128
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant’s Motion to Consolidate
`Related Appeals for Procedural Efficiency
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b)(2) and Ninth
`
`Circuit Rule 3 -3(b), Plaintiff -Appellant Ashley M. Gjovik respectfully moves this
`
`Cour t to consolidate Case Nos. 24 -6058 and 25 -2028 into a single appellate
`
`proceeding. These appeals arise from identical district court proceedings, stem
`
`from the same underlying claims, and inv olve overlapping legal and procedural
`
`issues
`
`concerning Rule
`
`54(b)
`
`certification
`
`and
`
`appellate
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`Consolidation will ser ve the interests of judicial efficiency, procedural uniformity,
`
`and the avoidance of duplicative litigation.
`
`II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant filed Appeal No. 24 -6058 in 2024, challenging
`
`dismissals of her claims.
`
`3.
`
`Case No. 24 -6058 was filed following the district court’s dismissal
`
`of cer tain claims. However, this Cour t sua sponte dismissed the appeal on
`
`jurisdictional grounds, citing the absence of Rule 54(b) certification . A motion for
`
`reconsideration remains pending.
`
`4.
`
`Case No. 25 -2028 was filed after further dismissals in the district
`
`court. Simultaneously, Plaintiff -Appellant sought Rule 54(b) certification to
`
`clarify the finality of the dismissed claims and ensure appealability. A hearing on
`
`this motion is scheduled for June 12, 2025 in the district cour t.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR CONSOLIDATION
`
`5.
`
`Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b)(2) provides that when two
`
`or more parties have filed separate timely notices of appeal, the court may join or
`
`— 2 —
`
` Case: 25-2028, 03/28/2025, DktEntry: 3.1, Page 2 of 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 13 of 128
`
`consolidate the appeals. The Ninth Circuit routinely grants consolidation where
`
`cases share common legal and factual issues and where it would promote
`
`efficiency. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc ., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th
`
`Cir. 2006) (consolidation warranted where claims arise from the same set of facts
`
`and involve overlapping legal questions).
`
`6.
`
`The Supreme Court has emphasized that consolidation is appropriate
`
`where it prevents wasteful duplication of effort and ensures consistent and
`
`efficient judicial review. See Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp. , 574 U.S. 405, 410
`
`(2015). Likewise, appellate courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets
`
`in a manner that preser ves judicial resources and prevents piecemeal litigation.
`
`See Landis v. N. Am . Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).
`
`7.
`
`Additionally,
`
`the Ninth Circuit
`
`has
`
`repeatedly
`
`endorsed
`
`consolidation where fragmentation would undermine
`
`judicial economy and
`
`procedural consistency. See Matter of Search Warrant Executed on March 25, 2022,
`
`69 F.4th 1213, 1220 (9th Cir. 2023).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Consolidation Will Prevent Contradictor y Rulings and Promote
`Judicial Economy.
`
`8.
`
`These appeals involve the same underlying litigation, legal questions,
`
`and procedural posture. Allowing them to proceed separately risks inconsistent
`
`outcomes on the
`
`jurisdictional
`
`issue, which would create confusion and
`
`inefficiency. As this Court has obser ved, fragmented litigation of essentially
`
`identical issues undermines uniformity and judicial efficiency. AmerisourceBe rge n ,
`
`465 F.3d at 951.
`
`B. Consolidation Eliminates Duplicative Briefing and Unnecessar y
`Costs.
`
`9.
`
`If these appeals proceed separately, the parties must file duplicative
`
`— 3 —
`
` Case: 25-2028, 03/28/2025, DktEntry: 3.1, Page 3 of 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 14 of 128
`
`briefs, repeat oral arguments, and incur unnecessar y litigation costs on identical
`
`legal issues. Consolidation would allow for a single, streamlined briefing schedule,
`
`avoiding redundancy and unnecessar y litigation expenses.
`
`C. Consolidation Will Not Prejudice Either Party.
`
`10. Consolidation will not alter the substantive rights of either party, nor
`
`will
`
`it affect the district court’s pending adjudication of the Rule 54(b)
`
`certification motion. The only effect of consolidation is to ensure that both
`
`appeals are considered in a co ordinated manner, rather than through piecemeal
`
`litigation. As the Ninth Circuit has emphasized, courts should favor consolidation
`
`where it results in greater efficiency and consistency without creating undue delay
`
`or prejudice. Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1128 (2018).
`
`V. REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff -Appellant respectfully requests that this
`
`Cour t:
`
`• Consolidate Case Nos. 24 -6058 and 25 -2028 into a single appellate
`
`proceeding; and
`
`• Establish a unified briefing schedule to streamline litigation and avoid
`
`procedural inefficiencies.
`
`Should the Court grant this motion, Plaintiff -Appellant respectfully requests
`
`guidance on any modifications to existing deadlines to reflect the consolidated
`
`status of the cases.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 28 2025
`
`
`
`— 4 —
`
` Case: 25-2028, 03/28/2025, DktEntry: 3.1, Page 4 of 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 15 of 128
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ashley M. Gjovik
`
`Pro Se Plaintiff
`
`
`Email: legal@ashleygjovik.com
`Physical Address : Boston, Massachusetts
`Mailing Address: 2108 N St. Ste. 4553 Sacramento, CA, 95816
`Phone: (408) 883-4428
`
`
`
`
`— 5 —
`
` Case: 25-2028, 03/28/2025, DktEntry: 3.1, Page 5 of 5
`
`

`

`Case: 25-2028, 03/28/2025, DktEntry: 4.1, Page 1 of 37
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 16 of 128
`
`CASE No. 24-6058; 25-2028
`
`In THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`ASHLEY M. GJOVIK, an individual,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC ., a corporation,
`Defendant-Appellee.
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California
`No. 3:23-CV-04597
`The Honorable judge Edward M. Chen
`
`APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATIQN
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, _ID
`In Propria Personal
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553
`Sacramento, CA, 95816
`(408) 883-4428
`legal@ashleygjovik.com
`
`

`

`Case: 25-2028, 03/28/2025, DktEntry: 4.1, Page 2 of 37
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 17 of 128
`
`PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S MOTION
`TO CLARIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and this Court's
`1.
`inherent authority to manage its docket, Plaintiff-Appellant Ashley M. Gjovik
`respectfully moves for clarification of the briefing schedule in this appeal. A pending
`Rule 54(b) motion in the district court is scheduled for hearing on ]one 12, 2025, and its
`resolution could impact the scope and procedural posture of this appeal.
`2.
`Plaintiff-Appellant does not seek a stay of briefing but requests this Court's
`guidance on how the pending Rule 54(b) motion should be accounted for in the appellate
`schedule to ensure procedural efficiency.
`
`I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`3.
`On March 23, 2025, Plaintiff-Appellant filed a Rule 54(b) motion in the
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Dkt. 189), seeking
`certification of final judgment for certain dismissed claims.
`4.
`On March 25, 2025, Plaintiff-Appellant filed a protective notice of appeal
`(Dkt. 190) to preserve appellate jurisdiction while the Rule 54(b) motion remains
`pending.
`5.
`On March 27, 2025, this Court docketed Case No. 25-2028 and issued a
`briefing schedule with the Opening Brief due on May 6 2025 and Answering Brief due
`on ]one 5 2025.
`6.
`The district court has scheduled a hearing on the Rule 54(b) motion for]une
`12, 2025. Regardless of the district court's determination, this Court retains authority
`to assess the finality of the dismissed claims and may grant Rule 54(b) certification
`independently.
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 25-2028, 03/28/2025, DktEntry: 4.1, Page 3 of 37
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 18 of 128
`
`Federal courts recognize that briefing schedules may be clarified to account
`7.
`for procedural oncer tainties affecting appeal ability. Under Fed. R. App. P. 27, courts
`have broad discretion to issue clarifications or modifications of scheduling orders. See
`Lana's v. N Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (courts have the inherent power to control
`the disposition of causes on their docket).
`certification
`8.
`Additionally,
`appellate
`courts may grant Rule 54(b)
`independently of the district court's ruling. The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly exercised
`this discretion, particularly where the district court improperly denies cer unification. See
`Cnrtlss- Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elem. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 10 (1980) (appellate courts have
`discretion to review judgments for finality); Pakootas v. Teer Comlneo Metals, Ltd., 905
`F.3d 565, 577 (9th Cir. 2018)
`(reviewing finality determination under appellate
`jurisdiction).
`The Ninth Circuit has also made clear that protective appeals are an
`9.
`accepted mechanism to preserve appellate rights, par ticularly when lower courts create
`procedural uncertainty. See Flrstler Morty. Co. v. Investors Morty. Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269,
`276 (1991) (protective notices of appeal are appropriate where finality is unclear);
`Amerlean States Ins. Co. v. Dastard Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 2003) (courts should
`allow protective appeals when pending district court actions could affect jurisdiction);
`Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 630 F.2d 677, 680 (9th Cir. 1980) (parties should not be
`forced into premature appeals when jurisdictional questions remain unresolved).
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. Clarification Will Assist in Efficient Case Management and Avoid
`Unnecessary Motion Practice.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 25-2028, 03/28/2025, DktEntry: 4.1, Page 4 of 37
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 19 of 128
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant does not seek a stay of briefing but rather seeks clarity
`10.
`on the Court's expectations to ensure an orderly appellate process. Preemptively
`addressing any potential procedural ambiguities will facilitate judicial economy and
`reduce the likelihood of unnecessary motion practice. See Matsushita Elem. Indus. Co. 9).
`Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 386 (1996) (courts should ensure that procedural clarity prevents
`unnecessary litigation delays).
`
`B. The Ninth Circuit Retains Authority to Determine Finality Regardless
`of the District Court's Ruling.
`
`11. A Rule 54(b) motion is relevant but not dispositive-this Court retains the
`authority to review the appeal's finality regardless of the district court's decision. The
`Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have consistently ruled that appellate jurisdiction may
`be exercised even in cases where Rule 54(b) certification is disputed. See Pakootas, 905
`F.3d at 577; Hall v. Hall, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1128 (2018) (appellate courts can consolidate
`and review procedurally related cases even where lower courts have not granted
`certification).
`
`c. A Briefing Schedule That Accounts for These Issues Will Promote
`Judicial Efficiency.
`
`12. Given that briefing deadlines are currently set before the district court's
`]one 12, 2025 hearing, clarification will ensure that both parties proceed with full
`awareness of the Court's procedural expectations. Ensuring a clear and structured
`approach to briefing will prevent any unnecessary procedural disputes and avoid delays
`in appellate review. See Chavez 7). City 0fLos Angeles, 799 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th Cir. 2015)
`(courts should interpret procedural rules to avoid inequitable results and promote fair
`administration of justice).
`
`IV. REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`13.
`Court:
`
`In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff-Appellant respectfully requests that this
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 25-2028, 03/28/2025, DktEntry: 4.1, Page 5 of 37
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 20 of 128
`
`Clarify whether any adjustments to the briefing schedule are warranted in
`light of the pending Rule 54(b) motion.
`Confirm that the Ninth Circuit retains authority to review finality and Rule
`54(b) certification independently, ensuring procedural clarity for the parties.
`
`v . CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff-Appellant respectfully requests that this
`14.
`Court provide the requested clarification to ensure judicial efficiency and prevent
`unnecessary litigation delays.
`
`Dated: March 28 2025
`
`\
`
`_
`
`/s/ Ashley M. Gjovik
`Pro Se Plaintiff
`
`Email: legal@ashleygjovik.com
`Physical Address: Boston, Massachusetts
`Mailing Address: 2108 N St. Ste. 4553 Sacramento, CA, 95816
`Phone: (408) 883-4428
`
`EXHIBITS:
`• Exhibit A:
`Plaintiff's pending Rule 54(b) Motion (CAND Dkt. No. 189), filed
`March 23, 2025.
`:Plaintiff's Protective Notice of Appeal (CAND Dkt. No. 190), filed
`Exhibit B
`March 25 2025.
`
`•
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 25-2028, 03/28/2025, DktEntry: 4.1, Page 6 of 37
`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 21 of 128
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 22 of 128
`Case 3:23-Q9-8iI539i§%§' 03620443
`9§@~t~¢i.@d.1@§fa§v2§ of 9898 1 of 26
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, _ID
`In Propria Personal
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553
`Sacramento, CA, 95816
`(408) 883-4428
`legal@ashleygjovik.com
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFQRNIA
`
`ASHLEY M. GJOVIK,
`an individual,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`61 corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
`REQUESTING CERTIFICATION
`OF APPEALABILITY
`UNDER Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(B)
`
`MOTION & MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`
`HEARING:
`Dept: Courtroom 5, 17th Floor & Zoom
`Judge: The Honorable Edward M. Chen
`Date: May 8 2025 | Time: l:30 pM
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 23 of 128
`Case 3:23-Q9-8iI539i§%§' 03620443
`9§@~t~¢i.@d.1@§fa§v2§ of 9898 2 of 26
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`......................................................................................
`
`2
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Iv.
`
`v.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`................................................................................................
`
`3
`
`PROCEDURAL POSTURE
`
`....................................................................................
`
`4
`
`LEGAL STANDARD UNDER RULE 54(B)
`
`.............................................................
`
`4
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`........................................................................................................
`
`6
`
`Finality of Dismissed Claims
`
`................................................................................
`6
`
`No]ust Reason for Delay
`
`.....................................................................................
`
`9
`
`C.
`Apple Cannot Claim Factual Entanglement After Moving to Dismiss Based On
`
`.................................................................................................................Separability
`11
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`........Rule54(b) Certification Will Not Cause Piecemeal Litigation-DenyingItWill
`
`12
`
`Plaintiff Would Be Severely Prejudiced by Further Delay
`
`.......................................
`
`14
`
`F. This Case WillNot Resolve atTrial Without Rule54 (B) -It Will Fracture
`
`..................
`
`15
`
`Denying Certification Risks Multiple Trials, InconsistentVerdicts, And Irreparable
`G.
`...................................................................................................................
`Prejudice
`
`16
`
`H.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Need to Protect the Legal Rights of All Harmed
`
`.............................................
`
`17
`
`Public Policy Supports Certification
`
`....................................................................
`
`18
`
`Retroactive Certification
`
`....................................................................................
`
`20
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`...................................................................................................
`
`20
`
`VII.
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`.....................................................................................................
`
`23
`
`PAGE: 1 | PLA1NTIFF'S P&A FOR RULE 54(B) CERT. | CASE No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 24 of 128
`Case 3:23-Q9-8iI539i§%§' 03620443
`9§@~t~¢i.@d.1@§fa§v2a of 9898 3 of 26
`
`1. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`SUPREME COURT CASES
`BMWofNorz'h America, lm. 7). Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 576-77 (1996)
`Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elem. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7-10 (1980) .
`Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elem. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) .
`...................................................
`Noel v. Hall, 568 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir. 2009)
`
`..............................
`
`10
`.4
`.8
`13, 14
`
`.7
`
`TRIAL AND CIRCUIT COURT CASES
`AmerlsoareeBergen Corp. v. Dlab/slst W, In., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) .
`..........................................
`Anderson v. Cr)iovae, In., 96 F.R.D. 431 (D. Mass. 1983)
`19
`..................................................
`Cheng v. Comm'r, 878 F.2d 306, 309 (9th Cir. 1989).
`8
`...3, 4, 12
`Frank Brlseoe Co. v. Morrison-Knndsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir. 1985)
`18
`In re Agent Orange Prod. Llala. Lltlg., 818 F.2d 145, 163 (2d Cir. 1987).
`...........................
`8
`James v. Prlee Stern Sloan, In., 283 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 2002)
`........................
`15
`James v. Prlee Stern Sloan, In., 283 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2002)
`.............................
`20
`Morrison-Knadsen Co. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981)
`.20
`Pakootas v. Teak Comlnoo Metals, Ltd., 905 F.3d 565, 577 (9th Cir. 2018)..
`......................................
`3
`Texaco, In. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 797-98 (9th Cir. 1991)
`.................................
`19
`Wlzva v. Royal Dateh Petroleum Co., 226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000)
`WM/I' Techs., In. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) .
`.6, 8
`...........................
`9, 12
`Wood 7). GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 878-879 (9th Cir. 2005)
`.................................
`4, 13
`Wood 7). GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2005)
`
`PAGE: 2 | PLA1NTIFF'S P&A FOR RULE 54(B) CERT. | CASE No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 25 of 128
`Case 3:2399/'?4§§'??|%fft03/.3842u(2§9hp1§6ntw4a =0'3?§.938 of,§a7ge 4 of 26
`
`PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RULE 54(B)
`CERTIFICATION: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS &
`AUTHORITIES
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-2, Plaintiff, Ashley Gjovik,
`
`respectfully moves for certification of final judgment as to certain dismissed claims. The dismissed claims
`
`involve legally distinct and separate causes of action that have been resolved fully and finally, and there is
`
`no just reason for delay in certifying them for appeal.
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION. TO DEFENDANT APPLE INC: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on
`
`May 8, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5, on the 17th Floor of the above-titled Court, located at 450
`
`Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, and virtually via Zoom, Plaintiff, Ashley Gjovik, will move
`
`the Court for an Order granting final judgment and certificate of appealability of certain of Plaintiff's
`
`dismissed claims. This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of
`
`Points and Authorities, the complete pleadings and records on file, and other evidence and arguments as
`
`may be presented at the hearing on this Motion. The plaintiff will also be imminently filing responsive
`
`motions to Defendant's Answer and intends to schedule those motions for this same May 8 2025 hearing.
`
`11. INTRODUCTION
`
`On February 27, 2025 at Dkt. No. 179, this Court issued an order dismissing several of Plaintiff's
`
`claims with prejudice and without leave to amend. These dismissals resolved those claims in their entirety
`
`and left no further factual or legal issues remaining as to those matters. The dismissed claims include
`
`causes of action under federal constitutional law, federal statutory protections, and state tort law, all of
`
`which were fully briefed and resolved on the merits.
`
`Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend on ]an. 31 2025 at Dkt. No. 155, requesting to replead a number
`
`other claims including under the RICO Act, Dodd-Frank Act, and Bane Civil Rights Act. The court's Feb.
`
`27 2025 (Dkt. No. 179) also denied this request and denied leave to amend, further finalizing these
`
`dismissals.
`
`The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate when the dismissed claims
`
`PAGE: 3 | PLA1NTIFF'S P&A FOR RULE 54(B) CERT. | CASE No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 202-1 Filed 04/14/25 Page 26 of 128
`Case 3:2399/'?4§§'??|%fft03/