102 F.3d 429 (1996) In re The EXXON VALDEZ. Gilbert G. ALLEN, Jr.; Steven H. Alley; Merlin M. Anahonak; Mickey Anahonak; Ronald G. Cameron; Bart Evich; Allen D. Hughes; Keith Gain; Henry Gain; Barrett J. Gribble; Shirley K. Gribble; Ralph W. Hatch; Natlie Kvasnikoff; Wally Kvasnikoff; Thomas B. Tressler, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EXXON CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation; Exxon Shipping Co., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. In re The EXXON VALDEZ. Rosemarie C. ABAD; David Akin; Jovito G. Balce; Al Curry, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EXXON CORP., a New Jersey Corp.; Exxon Shipping Co., a Delaware Corp., Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 94-35650, 94-35671. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted September 17, 1996. Decided December 12, 1996. 430*430 Suzanne C. Etpison, Bixby, Bowan & Gerry, San Diego, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Randall Scarlett, Brown, Monzione, Fabbro, Zakaria & Scarlett, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Kevin M. Harr and John F. Daum, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, CA, for defendants-appellees.
Before: KOZINSKI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,[*] Senior District Judge.
SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge:
This is one of numerous appeals from orders of the district court in the litigation arising from the EXXON VALDEZ oil spill. The appellants are 339 plaintiffs in individual actions filed in the Alaska state court and removed by appellees Exxon Corporation and Exxon Shipping Company to the district court in February 1992. Some (but not all) of these appellants moved for remand and, on the district court's denial of their motions, appealed. This court, in Eyak Native Village v. Exxon Corp., 25 F.3d 773, 782 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 351, 130 L.Ed.2d 307 (1994), ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 778, 130 L.Ed.2d 673, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 779, 130 L.Ed.2d 673 (1995), 431*431 reversed the district court's order and remanded the actions.
While the appeal in Eyak was pending, district court proceedings continued in appellants' cases. Appellees attempted to obtain discovery from appellants. Appellants failed to comply with repeated discovery requests and moved to dismiss their actions without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2), for the purpose of pursuing their claims as class members in pending class actions. In November 1992, the court denied appellants' motions, adopted the special master's recommendations, and pursuant to Rule 37, dismissed appellants' actions with prejudice for failure to make discovery. In May 1994, the court directed entry of final judgment against appellants (among others) pursuant to Rule 54(b).[1] We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
At the threshold, we confront the question whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter the orders that are the subject of this appeal. Of the 339 appellants, 207 were parties [BAD TEXT] seven actions in which appeals were taken from the denial of the remand motions.[2] In Eyak we held that, because the notices of removal were untimely, those actions had not been properly removed. The remaining 132 appellants were parties to actions in which removal was not challenged.[3]