UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 11, 2007
EDWARD A. THROOP, PLAINTIFF,
JEANNE WOODFORD, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. John A. Houston United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT [Doc. No. 18]
On February 16, 2007, Plaintiff Edward Throop ("Plaintiff") filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court's decision denying Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction without prejudice. Doc. No. 18. Plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of this Court's Order, dated January 23, 2007, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 21, 2007. Doc. No. 19.
Generally, the filing of a notice of appeal "transfers jurisdiction from the district court to the court of appeals with respect to all matters involved in the appeal." Masalosalo v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983). "The filing of a notice of an appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance - it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982).
In the instant matter, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals shortly after the filing of his motion for reconsideration. The filing of Plaintiff's appeal, therefore, divested this Court of any jurisdiction on the subject matter of the appeal, in this case the same subject matter of his motion for reconsideration: the denial of Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Accordingly, this Court finds that it has been divested of jurisdiction over the instant motion, and therefore DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.