Case Name: Beatrice A. OLUOCH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stella Kerubo ORINA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-29
Citations: 645 F. App'x 5
Docket Number: No. 15-1424
Parties: Beatrice A. OLUOCH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stella Kerubo ORINA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, PETER W. HALL and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 645
Pages: 5–6

Head Matter:
Beatrice A. OLUOCH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stella Kerubo ORINA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-1424.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
March 29, 2016.
Amy L. Rudd, Lindsey Cohan, Dechert LLP, Austin, TX, for Appellee.
Aaron D.P. Shapiro, The Shapiro Law Firm, LLC, New York, NY, for Appellant.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, PETER W. HALL and GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant Stella Kerubo Orina appeals from the March 31, 2015, order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Griesa, J.), granting in part and denying in part Ori-na's motion to dismiss six of the eight claims raised in the complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
This Court's jurisdiction over appeals from district courts is generally limited to final orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; matters encompassed by § 1292(a); interlocutory orders certified under § 1292(b); or orders falling within the collateral order doctrine, see Whiting v. Lacara, 187 F.3d 317, 319 (2d Cir.1999). The district court's March 31 order falls within none of these categories. Orina contends that § 1292(a) provides us with jurisdiction over her interlocutory appeal; this argument is not just meritless but frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (providing jurisdiction over appeal from orders (1) relating to injunctions; (2) relating to re-ceiverships; or (3) involving admiralty law).
For the foregoing reasons, we hereby DISMISS the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Additionally, Orina and her counsel are ordered to show cause, no later than fourteen days following entry of this order, why they should not be sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal, in the form of double costs for which they would be jointly and severally liable. See Fed. R.App. P. 38; 28 U.S.C. § 1927; Gallop v. Cheney, 642 F.3d 364, 370 (2d Cir.2011). Their response shall be no more than eight pages, double-spaced. Plaintiff-appellee Beatrice A. Oluoch may file a letter brief if she wishes to respond, not longer than eight pages, double-spaced, within fourteen days of the date by which the response by Orina and her counsel is due.