Currier v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The court addressed a defective notice of appeal filed by the plaintiff regarding a non-final order and sua sponte extended the deadline for the plaintiff to file an amended complaint due to the COVID-19 emergency. The court ordered the parties to continue litigating the case as active and ongoing, with the defendant required to respond to the amended complaint or file a dispositive motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The court determined that the plaintiff's notice of appeal from a non-final, non-appealable order did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction.“The Court concludes that Currier’s notice of appeal from its non-final, non-appealable order does not deprive it of jurisdiction.” | agree with court The decision follows from the established principle that a notice of appeal from a non-final order does not divest the district court of jurisdiction, allowing the court to proceed with the case. |
The court sua sponte extended the deadline for the plaintiff to file an amended complaint to April 20, 2020.“the Court sua sponte EXTENDS the deadline for Currier to file his amended complaint to April 20, 2020.” | agree with court The extension is a procedural accommodation for a pro se litigant filing by mail during a declared emergency, which is within the court's inherent authority to manage its docket and ensure due process. |
The court directed the parties to treat the case as active and ongoing and instructed the defendant to file an answer, dispositive motion, or otherwise defend after the amended complaint is filed or the deadline passes.“The parties should treat this Case as active and ongoing... After Currier files his amended complaint, or if the deadline passes without his having filed it, Defendants should file an answer, file a dispositive motion, or otherwise defend.” | agree with court This is a standard case management order ensuring the litigation proceeds according to the court's prior scheduling orders. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Ninth Circuit precedent regarding jurisdiction over non-final appeals and provides a reasonable, fact-specific extension for a pro se litigant during a public health emergency. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural issues raised by the plaintiff's filings.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICHARD SCOTT CURRIER Case No.: 20cv227-LAB (JLB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES 13 v. TO CONTINUE LITIGATING; AND 14 JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA, et al. 15 ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO Defendants. AMEND 16 17 18 Plaintiff Richard Currier filed a notice of appeal (Docket no. 25), which does 19 not provide the issues appealed or explain the basis for appeal. Currier did not pay 20 the filing fee and has not moved to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Because 21 he used the case number of his existing appeal, it appears he is attempting to file 22 this as part of the same case on appeal, rather than as a new appeal. Based on 23 the date provided in the notice of appeal, Currier is seeking review of the Court’s 24 March 5 order denying his motion for reconsideration. 25 Ordinarily a notice of appeal deprives the Court of jurisdiction over the matter 26 appealed. But a notice of appeal from a non-final, non-appealable order does not 27 deprive the Court of jurisdiction, and the Court may disregard it and proceed to 28 adjudicate the case. Ruby v. Secretary of U.S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1 1966). The Court concludes that Currier’s notice of appeal from its non-final, non- 2 ||appealable order does not deprive it of jurisdiction. The parties should treat this 3 || Case as active and ongoing. The Court’s orders regarding the filing of an amended 4 ||complaint and response (see Docket numbers 7, 23 and 24) remain in place, 5 || unless amended or suspended by this Court or the Ninth Circuit. 6 Because of the COVID-19 emergency, certain restrictions are in place and 7 ||certain requirements have been temporarily suspended. The parties should check 8 Court’s website frequently for information on current requirements. To permit 9 || Currier to file his amended complaint by mail, the Court sua sponte EXTENDS the 10 deadline for Currier to file his amended complaint to April 20, 2020. This extension 11 |/is not intended to give Currier more time than he has already been given to prepare 12 amended complaint, but rather to give him enough time to mail in his amended 13 || complaint with enough time for it to be received and docketed by the filing deadline. 14 ||After Currier files his amended complaint, or if the deadline passes without his 15 |/having filed it, Defendants should file an answer, file a dispositive motion, or 16 otherwise defend. 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ||Dated: March 23, 2020 21 (A / AB WY 22 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 23 Chief United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28