With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". because there is no substantial question presented by these appeals, we grant Wipro’s motions to summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. Gupta’s motions for summary action are denied, as is his motion to strike Wipro’s motion for summary action in C.A. No. 15-3194. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 . Gupta initially filed the complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which, upon Wipro’s motion (which was joined by the Secretary of Labor), transferred the matter to the District of New Jersey. To the extent that Gupta seeks review of that transfer order, we lack jurisdiction. See Posnanski v. Gibney, 421 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Furthermore, the ARB properly concluded

A: holding the order of the circuit court did not involve the merits of the action and was therefore interlocutory and not reviewable by the supreme court for lack of finality
B: holding the order is only reviewable if actually considered by the district court
C: holding that when the district court improperly purported to transfer to the circuit court an action over which the circuit court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter its judgment which was void and dismissing the appeal from that void judgment
D: holding that a transfer order issued by a district court in another circuit is reviewable only in the circuit of the transferor district court
D.