Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Title Robert Yousefian v. City of Glendale

March 11, 2013

TITLE ROBERT YOUSEFIAN
v.
CITY OF GLENDALE, ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)

None Present None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LIZARRAGA'S

MOTION TO CORRECT ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. # 106]

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 19, 2012, this Court issued an Order granting Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants Michael Lizarraga, the City of Glendale, and Petros Kmbikyan ("MSJ Order") [Doc. # 93]. On December 11, 2012, the Court remanded the remaining state law claims to the Los Angeles County Superior Court [Doc. # 96]. On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff Robert Yousefian filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals [Doc. # 97], and on December 20, 2012, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants [Doc. # 102].

On January 3, 2013, Defendant Lizarraga filed the instant Motion to Correct the MSJ Order, originally set for hearing on February 1, 2013 [Doc. # 106]. On January 29, 2013, the Court took the matter under submission because it deemed it appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.

Defendant Lizarraga characterizes his request as a motion to correct a "clerical mistake" in the MSJ Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Under Rule 60(a), "[t]he court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record." The requested correction, however, is factual rather than clerical in nature. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion is more appropriately characterized as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because the motion was filed within 28 days after entry of judgment, it is timely under Rule 59(e).

II. JURISDICTION

Generally, the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the aspects of the case which are the subject of the appeal.*fn1 Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 74 L. Ed. 2d 225 (1982). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure ("Appellate Rule") 4(a)(4)(A) allows the Court to retain ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.