Arellano v. Self
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Raul Arellano, Jr. v. R. Olson (2021-02-23) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Raul Arellano moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's order granting summary judgment, but had already filed a notice of appeal. The court denied the motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider the request because the notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (Doc. No. 93) is denied.“Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established principle that the filing of a timely notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the matters appealed. Because the plaintiff appealed the September 23, 2019 order, the district court could not entertain a motion for reconsideration of that same order. The reliance on Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co. is appropriate for this proposition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the jurisdictional bar created by the prior filing of a notice of appeal and cites the correct Ninth Circuit authority (Morris) to support the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The reasoning is direct and legally accurate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAUL ARELLANO, Case No.: 15-cv-2300-AJB-LL Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF RAUL v. ARELLANO’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 13 TO FILE A MOTION FOR R. OLSON, 14 RECONSIDERATION (Doc. No. 93) Defendant. 15 28 1 On September 23, 2019, the Court issued an order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s 2 ||Report and Recommendation, granting Defendant R. Olson’s motion for summary 3 ||judgment, and dismissing Plaintiff Raul Arellano’s (“Plaintiff”) Second Amended 4 ||Complaint. (Doc. No. 82.) On October 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the 5 || United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appealing this Court’s September 23, 6 order. (Doc. No. 88.) On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file 7 ||a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s September 23, 2019 order. (Doc. No. 93.) 8 || However, appearing that Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the same order Plaintiff seeks 9 have reconsidered, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to consider □□□□□□□□□□□ 10 || motion for reconsideration. See Morris v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 942 F.2d 648, 654 (9th 11 1991) (stating that district courts lack jurisdiction after notice of appeal is filed). 12 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 13 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 |}Dated: December 11, 2019 Q 16 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28