Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8697545
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Bixby v. KBR, Inc.
No. 8697545 · Decided August 3, 2016
No. 8697545·Ninth Circuit · 2016·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
August 3, 2016
Citation
No. 8697545
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM *** 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 Fed.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. *934 The motion to strike is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. xhis disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plain English Summary
§ 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.
Key Points
01§ 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.
022004) (“[T]he district court never had jurisdiction to issue its rulings on the merits....
03We must therefore' vacate as nullities the district court’s rulings.”).
04Accordingly, this appeal is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(a)(4).
Frequently Asked Questions
§ 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.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Bixby v. KBR, Inc. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on August 3, 2016.
Use the citation No. 8697545 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.