The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-35702•Rocky Bixby v. Kbr, Inc.; Kellogg, Brown & Root Service, Inc.
15-35702Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 3, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROCKY BIXBY; LAWRENCE
ROBERTA; RONALD BJERKLUND;
CHARLES ELLIS; MATTHEW
HADLEY; COLT CAMPREDON; VITO
PACHECO; BRIAN HEDIN; CHARLES
SEAMON; AARON ST. CLAIR; BYRON
GREER; JASON ARNOLD,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
KBR, INC.; KELLOGG, BROWN &
ROOT SERVICE, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 15-35702
15-35801
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00632-PK
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
AUG 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.