Petersen et al v. Browne et al

Filing 67

ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR APPEAL EXTENSION TO BE MOOT 64 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/30/2013)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RYAN PETERSEN, MICHAEL P. PETERSEN,
and RANDI PETERSEN,

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 12-3607 SI
ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR APPEAL EXTENSION TO
BE MOOT

Plaintiffs,
v.
MILDRED BROWNE, et al.,

11
12

Defendants.

/

13
On April 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed a “motion for appeal extension due to plaintiffs not receiving
14
the Court’s 3/6/13 order timely.” Docket No. 64. That same day, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
15
the judgment, the April 15, 2013 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First
16
Amended Complaint Without Leave to Amend, and the March 6, 2013 Order Denying Plaintiffs’
17
Motion for Reconsideration. Since plaintiffs have filed a timely notice of appeal, plaintiffs do not need
18
an extension of time and the Court finds plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time to be moot. This order
19
resolves Docket No. 64.
20
Since plaintiffs have appealed, jurisdiction of this case has transferred to the Court of
21
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. All questions, comments or pleadings concerning this case should now
22
be directed to the Court of Appeals, and plaintiffs should not contact the Clerk’s Office of this Court
23
any further until the appeal is resolved.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: April 30, 2013
26
27

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge