Whether the Ninth Circuit's undefined requirement for meaningful judicial participation impermissibly abandons this Court's longstanding mandate that 'finality is to be given a practical rather than a technical construction

QUESTION PRESENTED The district court dismissed without leave to amend all of Petitioner’s claims against one of two defendants, leaving a single claim against the other defendant. Petitioner and Respondents later voluntarily dismissed all remaining claims in the action at the suggestion of the district court to avoid further appearances and terminate the action. The case was closed. Petitioner timely appealed to the Ninth Circuit but fell into what is often called the “finality trap.” The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal solely based on _ its determination that the district court’s involvement was insufficient participation in the dismissal, even though there was no evidence of appellate manipulation or piecemeal litigation. The question presented is: Whether the Ninth Circuit’s undefined requirement for meaningful judicial participation impermissibly abandons this Court’s longstanding mandate that “finality is to be given a practical rather than a technical construction,” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 171 (1974) (Gnternal quotation marks omitted), and broadens the snare of the “finality trap.”