SHPAK v. Belzona Systems of California, Inc.; et al., Defendants. (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

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

No. 16-56323

Decided: February 12, 2018

Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, ** District Judge.

Randy Kornfeld, Kornfeld and Associates, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees Rebekah L. Parker, Bankruptcy Counsel, Law Office of Rebekah L. Parker, Oceanside, CA, for Defendants-Appellants Rebekah L. Parker, Bankruptcy Counsel, Law Office of Rebekah L. Parker, Oceanside, CA, for Defendants

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) (“[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.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law