Jackson v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The parties are separately ORDERED by November 22, 2013, to show cause in writing why the post-judgment motions should not be deemed withdrawn, abandoned, or rendered moot, without prejudice to the appeal itself. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 11/6/13. (SAC )

FILED
2013 Nov-06 PM 03:43
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLETTE SWANN JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

CIVIL ACTION NO.
12-AR-1753-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The

procedural

circumstances

which

led

to

this

court’s

possibly erroneous order of November 5, 2013, expressing the belief
that the court lacks jurisdiction to rule upon plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration, are as follows:
1.

On October 4, 2013, the court granted the motion of

defendant, United Parcel Service, Inc., for summary judgment and
entered final judgment against plaintiff, Charlette Swann Jackson,
dismissing her action with prejudice.
2.

On October 22, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion to amend

her complaint and a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of
October 4, 2013.

She did not expressly invoke Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 59(e).
3.

On October 23, 2013, the court entered an order granting

defendant until November 6, 2013, to respond to plaintiff’s postjudgment motions.
4.

On November 4, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal

to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the final

judgment entered on October 4, 2013.
* * * * *
Under the foregoing circumstances, defendant is RELIEVED of
any obligation to respond to plaintiff’s post-judgment motions by
November 6, 2013.
The court has never before been confronted with post-judgment
motions that, if granted, would reinstate a case and take away from
the appellant the appealable order from the appeal that was taken.
If this plaintiff should prevail on her post-judgment motions, her
appeal would be eliminated.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”) 4(a)(4)(B)(i) is
ambiguous as to what effect plaintiff’s pending appeal has upon the
jurisdiction of the court to rule on plaintiff’s post-judgment
motions.

The circumstances are unique.

Under FRAP 4, the appeal

arguably renders the notice of appeal a nullity until there is a
ruling on the FRCP 59(e) motion.

But plaintiff not only filed an

FRCP 59(e) motion, but a motion for leave to amend her complaint,
something entirely different and clearly not contemplated as a
tolling device on the time for appeal under FRAP 4.
It appears to the court that by filing her notice of appeal,
plaintiff

implicitly

withdrew

or

abandoned

her

post-judgment

motions.

If the court understands plaintiff correctly in this

regard, this court’s order of November 5, 2013, was unnecessary,
and is due to be set aside.

If plaintiff intends to pursue her
2

post-judgment motions while also pursuing her appeal, this court’s
jurisdiction is still a matter to be determined.
The parties are hereby separately ORDERED by November 22,
2013, to show cause in writing, if they can do so, why the postjudgment motions should not be deemed withdrawn, abandoned, or
rendered moot, without prejudice, of course, to the appeal itself.
If defendant decides that it cannot show such cause, and concedes
that this court has jurisdiction over plaintiff’s post-judgment
motions, or either of them, it shall simultaneously respond to
plaintiff’s motions on their merits.
DONE this 6th day of November, 2013.

_____________________________
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3