LAW.coLAW.co

Natasha SHPAK; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Malcolm CURTIS and Judith Curtis, Defendants-Appellants, and Belzona Systems of California, Inc.; et al., Defendants

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2018-02-12No. No. 16-56323
711 F. App'x 408

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

ORDER

This is an appeal from the district court’s rejection of a “notice of removal,” which sought to “remove” an action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the Central District of California. The notice, however denominated, was in substance a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and the district court’s order thus effectively was a denial of the requested transfer. That order was not a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Pac. Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 951 (9th Cir. 1968) (“[Ojrders respecting venue entered under § 1404(a) and § 1406(a) are interlocutory in nature and are not appealable prior to final judgment.”). We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. This order shall constitute the mandate of this court.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.