Rocky Bixby v. Kbr, Inc. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    AUG 03 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ROCKY BIXBY; LAWRENCE                            Nos. 15-35702
    ROBERTA; RONALD BJERKLUND;                            15-35801
    CHARLES ELLIS; MATTHEW
    HADLEY; COLT CAMPREDON; VITO                     D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00632-PK
    PACHECO; BRIAN HEDIN; CHARLES
    SEAMON; AARON ST. CLAIR; BYRON
    GREER; JASON ARNOLD,                             MEMORANDUM*
    Plaintiffs-Appellees,
    v.
    KBR, INC.; KELLOGG, BROWN &
    ROOT SERVICE, INC.,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Paul J. Papak II, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 22, 2016**
    San Francisco, California
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Before: W. FLETCHER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and WALTER,***
    District Judge.
    We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the district court’s
    dismissal of this case was a “final decision.” This Court’s previous decision held
    that the United States District Court for the District of Oregon lacked personal
    jurisdiction over Defendants. Bixby v. KBR, Inc., 603 F. Appx. 605 (9th Cir. 2015)
    (mem.). That decision vacated the district court’s judgment. See, e.g., Orff v.
    United States, 
    358 F.3d 1137
    , 1149–50 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he district court never
    had jurisdiction to issue its rulings on the merits . . . . We must therefore vacate as
    nullities the district court’s rulings.”). Accordingly, this appeal is governed by
    Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(a)(4). Because this Court has not ordered
    the taxation of the costs for which Defendants sought an award in the district court,
    the district court was correct to deny the motion for costs.
    The motion to strike is denied as moot.
    AFFIRMED.
    ***
    The Honorable Donald E. Walter, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-35702

Filed Date: 8/3/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021