
    Rocky BIXBY; Lawrence Roberta; Ronald Bjerklund; Charles Ellis; Matthew Hadley; Colt Campredon; Vito Pacheco; Brian Hedin; Charles Seamon; Aaron St. Clair; Byron Greer; Jason Arnold, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KBR, INC.; Kellogg, Brown & Root Service, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 15-35702
    15-35801
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 22, 2016  San Francisco, California
    FILED August 03, 2016
    Andrew Nathan Chang, Stuart Bruce Esner, Esner, Chang & Boyer, Pasadena, CA, Patrick Mason Dennis, Attorney, Michael Patrick Doyle, Doyle Raizner LLP, Houston, TX, David F. Sugerman, David F, Sugerman Attorney, PC, Portland, OR, Gabriel Adam Hawkins, Attorney, Cohen & Malad LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Jeffrey Eden, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt P.C., Portland, OR, Warren W. Harris, Attorney, Yvonne Yih-Fen Ho, Attorney, Braeewell LLP, Geoffrey L. Harrison, Esquire, Attorney, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before: W. FLETCHER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and WALTER, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Donald E. Walter, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
    
   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.

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.
     