Case Name: In re IBASIS, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. David Shutvet and Victor Malozi, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ofer Gneezy, Gordon J. Vanderbrug, Richard G. Tennant, Charles Corfield, Charles M. Skibo, W. Frank King, David Lee, Robert H. Brumley, Daniel Price, John G. Henson, Jr., Michael J. Hughes, Charles Giambalvo, John Jarve, Charles M. Houser, Carl Red-field, Paul H. Floyd, and iBasis Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Jonathan D. Draluck, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-14
Citations: 327 F. App'x 875
Docket Number: No. 2008-1473
Parties: In re IBASIS, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. David Shutvet and Victor Malozi, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ofer Gneezy, Gordon J. Vanderbrug, Richard G. Tennant, Charles Corfield, Charles M. Skibo, W. Frank King, David Lee, Robert H. Brumley, Daniel Price, John G. Henson, Jr., Michael J. Hughes, Charles Giambalvo, John Jarve, Charles M. Houser, Carl Red-field, Paul H. Floyd, and iBasis Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Jonathan D. Draluck, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 327
Pages: 875–875

Head Matter:
In re IBASIS, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. David Shutvet and Victor Malozi, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ofer Gneezy, Gordon J. Vanderbrug, Richard G. Tennant, Charles Corfield, Charles M. Skibo, W. Frank King, David Lee, Robert H. Brumley, Daniel Price, John G. Henson, Jr., Michael J. Hughes, Charles Giambalvo, John Jarve, Charles M. Houser, Carl Red-field, Paul H. Floyd, and iBasis Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Jonathan D. Draluck, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 2008-1473.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Aug. 14, 2008.
A.W. Phinney III, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, Boston, MA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Jeffrey P. Fink, Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Opinion:
ON MOTION
ORDER
David Shutvet and Victor Malozi (Shut-vet) move to transfer this appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Shutvet states that the motion is unopposed.
Upon consideration thereof,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The motion is granted.