ZIYA V. THOMAS/WRIGHT INC. , No. 12-1563 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-1563 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 10/16/2012 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. mtniteb $)tate~ qcourt of §ppeaI~ for tbe jfeberaI qcircuit MARLENE ZIYA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THOMASIWRIGHT INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. AND BERNARDO B. SERNA, SUSAN LETENDRE, AND UNITED STATES, Defendants-Appellees, AND GLOBAL LINGUISTIC SOLUTION, Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1563 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in case no. 11-CV-1398, Judge Michael w. Mosman. ON MOTION Case: 12-1563 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 10/16/2012 MARLENE ZIYA V. THOMAS/WRIGHT INCORPORATED 2 Before LINN, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER ThomaslWright Incorporated and the United States both move to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Marlene Ziya responds. This appeal concerns an order of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona transferring Ziya's complaint to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Ziya's underlying complaint alleged various tort and contract claims against her employer, ThomaslWright Incorporated, and various tort claims against employees of the United States. This is a court of limited jurisdiction. 28 U.s.C. § 1295. Because this case does not fall within our limited jurisdiction, the court deems it more appropriate to transfer the case and all pending motions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 163l. Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The appeal and all pending motions are transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. FOR THE COURT OCT 16 2012 Date cc: Marlene Ziya Garry S. Grossman, Esq. Kevin C. Danielson, Esq. /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk Case: 12-1563 3 Document: 25 Filed: 10/16/2012 MARLENE ZIYA V. THOMAS/WRIGHT INCORPORATED Corinne Anne Niosi, Esq. Christie Kriegsfeld, Esq. s26 Page: 3

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.