Rocky Bixby v. Kbr, Inc.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 3, 2016
Docket15-35702
StatusUnpublished

This text of Rocky Bixby v. Kbr, Inc. (Rocky Bixby v. Kbr, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rocky Bixby v. Kbr, Inc., (9th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 03 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ROCKY BIXBY; LAWRENCE Nos. 15-35702 ROBERTA; RONALD BJERKLUND; 15-35801 CHARLES ELLIS; MATTHEW HADLEY; COLT CAMPREDON; VITO D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00632-PK PACHECO; BRIAN HEDIN; CHARLES SEAMON; AARON ST. CLAIR; BYRON GREER; JASON ARNOLD, MEMORANDUM*

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

KBR, INC.; KELLOGG, BROWN & ROOT SERVICE, INC.,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Paul J. Papak II, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2016** San Francisco, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: W. FLETCHER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and WALTER,*** District Judge.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the district court’s

dismissal of this case was a “final decision.” This Court’s previous decision held

that the United States District Court for the District of Oregon lacked personal

jurisdiction over Defendants. Bixby v. KBR, Inc., 603 F. Appx. 605 (9th Cir. 2015)

(mem.). That decision vacated the district court’s judgment. See, e.g., Orff v.

United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1149–50 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he district court never

had jurisdiction to issue its rulings on the merits . . . . We must therefore vacate as

nullities the district court’s rulings.”). Accordingly, this appeal is governed by

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(a)(4). Because this Court has not ordered

the taxation of the costs for which Defendants sought an award in the district court,

the district court was correct to deny the motion for costs.

The motion to strike is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

*** The Honorable Donald E. Walter, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rocky Bixby v. Kbr, Inc.
603 F. App'x 605 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Orff v. United States
358 F.3d 1137 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rocky Bixby v. Kbr, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rocky-bixby-v-kbr-inc-ca9-2016.