Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0423-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lidia G. BISTRIKA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a private Washington corporation licensed to do business in Oregon, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-35197
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 23, 2016
    Lidia G. Bistrika, Pro Se
    Laura E. Rosenbaum, Attorney, Victor Joseph Kisch, Attorney, Andrea H. Thompson, Attorney, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, OR, Jill D. Bowman, Attorney, Stoel Rives LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lidia G. Bistrika appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion for reconsideration and motion for appointment of counsel in her employment discrimination action brought under state law. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the challenged order is not immediately appealable. See Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106-07, 113, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009) (discussing collateral order doctrine, and reiterating “that the class of collaterally appealable orders must remain narrow and selective in its membership”); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1330 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding an order denying the request for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 not immediately appealable).

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