Zetwick v. County of Yolo, et. al.

Filing 32

ORDER re CLARIFICATION OF MINUTE ORDER 30 signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/25/14. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VICTORIA ZETWICK,

12
13
14
15

No. 12-cv-02486-TLN-AC

Plaintiff,
v.

CLARIFICATION OF MINUTE ORDER
(ECF No. 30)

COUNTY OF YOLO, ET AL.,
Defendant.

16
17
18

Defendants have requested clarification of this Court’s Minute Order (ECF No. 30) filed
on November 24, 2014. In response, the Court submits the following.

19

The filing of a proper notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction over the matters appealed to

20

the court of appeals. During pendency of the appeal, the district court is divested of jurisdiction

21

over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer

22

Discount Co., 459 US 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam); Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir.

23

1997). However, the district court’s jurisdiction is not completely divested pending an appeal.

24

The district court retains limited jurisdiction to decide collateral issues (e.g., attorney fees). See

25

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Southwest Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.

26

2001) (holding that district court retained jurisdiction to modify injunction where changes “did

27

not materially alter the status of the consolidated appeal”). Thus, Plaintiff’s appeal does not

28

preclude the parties from filing motions concerning attorney’s fees during the interim. In fact, the
1

1

parties should file any appropriate motions within the specified time frame delineated in the Local

2

Rules. However, due to the pendency of the appeal, the Court will postpone ruling on such

3

motions until the appeal before the Ninth Circuit has been decided.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: November 25, 2014

7
8
9
10

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2