Case Name: Natasha SHPAK; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Malcolm CURTIS and Judith Curtis, Defendants-Appellants, and Belzona Systems of California, Inc.; et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-12
Citations: 711 F. App'x 408
Docket Number: No. 16-56323
Parties: Natasha SHPAK; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Malcolm CURTIS and Judith Curtis, Defendants-Appellants, and Belzona Systems of California, Inc.; et al., Defendants.
Judges: Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 711
Pages: 408–408

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.