Holmes v. Romeo Enterprises, LLC ( 2016 )

15-3719
Holmes v. Romeo Enterprises, LLC
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 30th day of June, two thousand sixteen.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 GUIDO CALABRESI,
8 REENA RAGGI,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12 FRANKIE HOLMES,
13 Plaintiff-Appellant,
14
15 -v.- 15-3719
16
17 ROMEO ENTERPRISES, LLC
18 Defendant-Appellee.
19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
20
21 FOR APPELLANT: Abdul K. Hassan, Abdul Hassan
22 Law Group, PLLC, Queens Village,
23 New York.
24
25 FOR APPELLEE: Sanjeeve K. DeSoyza, Bond,
26 Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Albany,
27 New York.
28
1
1 Appeal from an order of the United States District
2 Court for the Southern District of New York (Briccetti, J.).
3
4 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
5 AND DECREED that the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
6 appellate jurisdiction.
7
8 Frankie Holmes appeals from an order of the United
9 States District Court for the Southern District of New York
10 (Briccetti, J.), granting Romeo Enterprises, LLC’s motion to
11 transfer venue. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the
12 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues
13 presented for review.
14
15 We lack appellate jurisdiction over an order granting a
16 motion to transfer venue, given the stringent standards
17 governing the collateral order doctrine. Our “review of the
18 disposition of the transfer motion may delay a decision on
19 the merits and so defeat the manifest statutory objective of
20 making litigation quicker and less expensive.” A. Olinick &
21 Sons v. Dempster Bros., Inc., 365 F.2d 439, 443 (2d Cir.
22 1966).
23
24 For the foregoing reason, and finding no merit in
25 Holmes’s other arguments, we hereby DISMISS the appeal for
26 lack of jurisdiction.
27
28
29 FOR THE COURT:
30 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
31
2