Case ID: f-appx_711/html/0408-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Natasha SHPAK; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Malcolm CURTIS and Judith Curtis, Defendants-Appellants, and Belzona Systems of California, Inc.; et al., Defendants.
    No. 16-56323
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 8, 2018  Pasadena, California
    Filed February 12, 2018
    Randy Kornfeld, Kornfeld and Associates, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appel-lees
    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
    Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY,  District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
      The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   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 Upited 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.