Nataha Shpak v. Malcolm Curtis

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATASHA SHPAK; et al., No. 16-56323
Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No.
5:16-cv-01687-MWF-KK
v.
MALCOLM CURTIS and JUDITH
CURTIS, ORDER*
Defendants-Appellants,
and
BELZONA SYSTEMS OF CALIFORNIA,
INC.; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 8, 2018**
Pasadena, 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: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, *** District
Judge.
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) (“[O]rders 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.
***
The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
2