entered on October 13, 1998, holding that Harvey’s claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On appeal, Harvey challenges both the district court’s July 8, 1997, dismissal of Judge Hernandez and the district court’s October 13, 1998, dismissal of the remaining defendants. II. The district court dismissed Judge Hernandez from the lawsuit based on its finding that Judge Hernandez was entitled to absolute judicial immunity. Harvey contends that Judge Hernandez acted without either personal or subject matter jurisdiction and is not, therefore, entitled to judicial immunity. We review the question of judicial immunity de novo. See Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir.1996). A. Sufficiency of Notice of Appeal As a threshold m 75, 677 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). To preserve his right to appeal the dismissal
holding that dismissal with leave to amend is not a final order holding that an order is not a final appealable order when it does not dispose of the complaints against all of the defendants holding that plaintiffs were entitled to vacate final order of dismissal as void when they did not receive the motion for dismissal or notice of the hearing on the order until after the dismissal was entered holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order holding that dismissal of some but not all of the defendants who had been served with complaint is not a final order