Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110481524 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2011

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________

No. 10-3000
____________

LISA LIBERI; PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE;

THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG; EVELYN
ADAMS, a/k/a MOMMA E; LISA M. OSTELLA;
GO EXCEL GLOBAL

v.

ORLY TAITZ, a/k/a DR. ORLY TAITZ, a/k/a LAW OFFICES OF

ORLY TAITZ, a/k/a WWW.ORLYTAITZESQ.COM, a/k/a
WWW.REPUBX.COM, a/k/a ORLY TAITZ, INC.; DEFEND OUR
FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.; YOSEF TAITZ; THE
SANKEY FIRM; SANKEY INVESTIGATIONS, INC.; NEIL
SANKEY; JAMES SUNDQUIST; ROCK SALT PUBLISHING;
LINDA SUE BELCHER, a/k/a LINDA S. BELCHER, a/k/a LINDA
STARR, a/k/a NEWWOMENSPARTY, a/k/a STITCHENWITCH,
a/k/a EVA BRAUN, a/k/a WEB SERGEANT, a/k/a KATY, a/k/a
WWW.OBAMACITIZENSHIPDEBATE.ORG; EDGAR HALE,
a/k/a JD SMITH; CAREN HALE; PLAINS RADIO NETWORK,
a/k/a PLAINS RADIO NETWORK, INC., a/k/a PLAINS RADIO;
BAR H FARMS; KPRN AM 1610; DOES 1 THROUGH 200
INCLUSIVE

Orly Taitz; Defend Our Freedoms

Foundations, Inc., Appellants
____________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civ. No. 2-09-cv-01898)
District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
1
 Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110481524 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2011

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

February 9, 2011

Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: March 28, 2011)

____________

OPINION
____________

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs in this case, Lisa Liberi and a number of persons and entities

associated with her employer, Philip J. Berg, filed this diversity suit against Orly Taitz

and a number of individuals and organizations apparently allied with her. The complaint

included claims of defamation, slander, and libel, arising out of defendants’ alleged mass

publication of Liberi’s name, social security number, and other identifying and

purportedly false biographical information.

On June 25, 2009, at the plaintiffs’ request, the District Court entered an

order dismissing without prejudice two of the defendants to maintain diversity

jurisdiction. On June 4, 2010, the District Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss

for lack of jurisdiction, severed the litigation into two independent matters and transferred

the cases to the Central District of California and the Western District of Texas.

Defendants then appealed to this Court.

2
 Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110481524 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/28/2011

While the appeal was pending, a divided motions panel, without opinion,

denied the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. After further

briefing by the parties submitted at the direction of the Court, we have again reviewed the

litigation and now direct that this appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Defendants contend that the jurisdictional matter was settled by the denial

of the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. However, under our Internal

Operating Procedures, jurisdictional questions are reserved for the merits panel. See

Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.3.5 (“If . . . the [motions] panel votes not to grant the motion [to

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction], the motion is referred by order, without decision and

without prejudice, to the merits panel”); Reilly v. City of Atlantic City, 532 F.3d 216, 223

(3d Cir. 2008) (motions panel’s denials of motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

“effectively constituted . . . referrals” of motions to merits panel).

“It is entirely settled . . . that an order granting . . . a motion to transfer

venue under [28 U.S.C. §] 1404(a) . . . is interlocutory in character and not immediately

appealable under Section 1291.” 15 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H.

Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3855, at 319 (3d ed. 2007). There being no

basis for this Court to adjudicate the issues raised by defendants, it is ordered that the

3
 Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110481524 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/28/2011

appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 1

All unresolved motions shall be decided by the transferee courts because we

lack jurisdiction to determine the merits. See id. § 3846, at 69 (after grant of motion to

transfer venue and lodging of papers with transferee court’s clerk, “the transferor court --

and the appellate court that has jurisdiction over it -- loses all jurisdiction over the case

and may not proceed further with regard to it”); id. at 79 (once transfer order is entered,

“all further proceedings in the action merely are referred to and determined by the

transferee tribunal”).

Order accordingly.

1
In response to our request for briefing on the appealability of the transfer order,
defendants asked that we treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus. Because
there were no “exceptional circumstances amounting to a ‘judicial usurpation of power’”
on the part of the District Court, see Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967), and
the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be addressed by the transferee court, see Kerr
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976) (writ should not issue
where other adequate remedies exist), the alternative request for mandamus relief is
denied.

4
 Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110481556 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2011

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

MARCIA M. WALDRON UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TELEPHONE

CLERK FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 215-597-2995
21400 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
601 MARKET STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-1790
Website: www.ca3.uscourts.gov

March 28, 2011

Ms. Linda S. Belcher

201 Paris Street
Castroville, TX 78009

Philip J. Berg
555 Andorra Glen Court
Suite 12
LaFayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Mr. Neil Sankey

4230 Alamo Street
Simi Valley, CA 98063

Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita
Suite 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

RE: Lisa Liberi v. Orly Taitz

Case Number: 10-3000
District Case Number: 2-09-cv-01898

ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Today, March 28, 2011 the Court entered its judgment in the above-captioned matter pursuant to
Fed. R. App. P. 36.

If you wish to seek review of the Court's decision, you may file a petition for rehearing. The
procedures for filing a petition for rehearing are set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 35 and 40, 3rd Cir.
LAR 35 and 40, and summarized below.
 Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110481556 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2011

Time for Filing:

14 days after entry of judgment.
45 days after entry of judgment in a civil case if the United States is a party.

Page Limits:
15 pages
Attachments:
A copy of the panel's opinion and judgment only. No other attachments are permitted without
first obtaining leave from the Court.

Unless the petition specifies that the petition seeks only panel rehearing, the petition will be
construed as requesting both panel and en banc rehearing. If separate petitions for panel
rehearing and rehearing en banc are submitted, they will be treated as a single document and will
be subject to a combined 15 page limit. If only panel rehearing is sought, the Court's rules do not
provide for the subsequent filing of a petition for rehearing en banc in the event that the petition
seeking only panel rehearing is denied.

A party who is entitled to costs pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39 must file an itemized and verified
bill of costs within 14 days from the entry of judgment. The bill of costs must be submitted on
the proper form which is available on the court's website.

A mandate will be issued at the appropriate time in accordance with the Fed.R.App.P. 41.

Please consult the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the timing and
requirements for filing a petition for writ of certiorari.

Very truly yours,

Marcia M. Waldron,
Clerk

By: Anthony Infante,

Case Manager
Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110481539 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2011

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________

No. 10-3000
____________

LISA LIBERI; PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE;

THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG; EVELYN
ADAMS, a/k/a MOMMA E; LISA M. OSTELLA;
GO EXCEL GLOBAL

v.

ORLY TAITZ, a/k/a DR. ORLY TAITZ, a/k/a LAW OFFICES OF

ORLY TAITZ, a/k/a WWW.ORLYTAITZESQ.COM, a/k/a
WWW.REPUBX.COM, a/k/a ORLY TAITZ, INC.; DEFEND OUR
FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.; YOSEF TAITZ; THE
SANKEY FIRM; SANKEY INVESTIGATIONS, INC.; NEIL
SANKEY; JAMES SUNDQUIST; ROCK SALT PUBLISHING;
LINDA SUE BELCHER, a/k/a LINDA S. BELCHER, a/k/a LINDA
STARR, a/k/a NEWWOMENSPARTY, a/k/a STITCHENWITCH,
a/k/a EVA BRAUN, a/k/a WEB SERGEANT, a/k/a KATY, a/k/a
WWW.OBAMACITIZENSHIPDEBATE.ORG; EDGAR HALE,
a/k/a JD SMITH; CAREN HALE; PLAINS RADIO NETWORK,
a/k/a PLAINS RADIO NETWORK, INC., a/k/a PLAINS RADIO;
BAR H FARMS; KPRN AM 1610; DOES 1 THROUGH 200
INCLUSIVE

Orly Taitz; Defend Our Freedoms

Foundations, Inc., Appellants
____________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civ. No. 2-09-cv-01898)
District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

February 9, 2011
1
 Case: 10-3000 Document: 003110481539 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2011

Before: JORDAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

____________

JUDGMENT
____________

This cause came to be heard on the record from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted on February 9, 2011.

On consideration whereof, it is here now ORDERED AND ADJUDGED

that the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Costs accrued in this litigation to this date will be determined by the

transferee courts.

All of the above is in accordance with the Opinion of this Court.

ATTEST:

/s/ Marcia M. Waldron

Clerk

Dated: 28 March 2011