LIDIA BISTRIKA V. COSTCO, No. 14-35197 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIDIA G. BISTRIKA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-35197 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 6:11-cv-06158-TC MEMORANDUM* COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a private Washington corporation licensed to do business in Oregon, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Thomas M. Coffin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted November 16, 2016*** Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Lidia G. Bistrika appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). motion for reconsideration and motion for appointment of counsel in her employment discrimination action brought under state law. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the challenged order is not immediately appealable. See Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106-07, 113 (2009) (discussing collateral order doctrine, and reiterating “that the class of collaterally appealable orders must remain narrow and selective in its membership”); Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1330 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding an order denying the request for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 not immediately appealable). DISMISSED. 2 14-35197

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.