Cettolin et al v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, et al

Filing 47

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs' New Motion for Relief on Consent Orders FRCP 60 (Doc. 45) and the associated Request for Judicial Notice (Doc. 46). (See document for further details). Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 5/24/11.(LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Fausto U. Cettolin, Jr.; Donna L. Cettolin,)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
GMAC; Mortgage Electronic Registration)
Systems, Inc.; Executive Trustee Services,)
)
LLC; et. al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

No. CV 10-8036-PCT-JAT
ORDER

16
17

Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal on December 27, 2010. (Doc. 42.) “Once a

18

notice of appeal is filed, the district court is divested of jurisdiction over the matters being

19

appealed.” Natural Res. Def. Council v. Southwest Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th

20

Cir. 2001)(quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)).

21

The Court retains jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i), even after a notice

22

of appeal has been filed, to dispose of certain previously-filed motions to modify, amend or

23

provide relief from the Court’s judgment. See Natural Res. Def. Council., 242 F.3d at 1166

24

(emphasis added).

25

Plaintiffs filed their “New Motion for Relief on Consent Orders – FRCP 60” on May

26

20, 2011. (Doc. 45.) They filed their Notice of Appeal on December 27, 2010. (Doc. 42.)

27

Because Plaintiffs filed the pending Motion for Relief after they filed their Notice of Appeal,

28

the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the Motion. Id.

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiffs’ New Motion for Relief on Consent Orders

3
4

– FRCP 60 (Doc. 45) and the associated Request for Judicial Notice (Doc. 46).
DATED this 24th day of May, 2011.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-