Pham v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. et al

Filing 53

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 52 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

KURT PHAM,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-6374 EMC

Plaintiff,
v.
FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY
AUTHORITY INC., et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(Docket No. 52)

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15

Previously, this Court entered a final judgment against Plaintiff in February 2013. See

16

Docket No. 31 (final judgment). Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration and then a

17

motion for a new trial, both of which were denied. See Docket Nos. 40, 43 (orders). Plaintiff then

18

filed a notice of appeal in April 2013. See Docket No. 45 (notice of appeal). Almost a year later,

19

Plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration, which is now currently pending before the Court.

20

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED. First, this Court lacks jurisdiction

21

over Plaintiff’s motion (filed almost a year after the final judgment) in light of his appeal. See

22

Katzir’s Floor & Home Design, Inc. v. M-MLS.COM, 394 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating

23

that “[t]he district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Rule 60(b) motion, which was filed after

24

the notice of appeal had been filed, thereby stripping the district court of its jurisdiction”).

25

To the extent Plaintiff asks this Court to provide an indicative ruling on his motion pursuant

26

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, the Court declines. Plaintiff’s motion largely repeats

27

arguments that this Court has already rejected. For example, citing California Code of Civil

28

Procedure § 1288.6, Plaintiff contends that the statute of limitations did not start running until after

1

FINRA ruled on his motion to correct the arbitration award. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1288.6 (providing

2

that, “[i]f an application if made to the arbitrators for correction of the award, a petition may not be

3

served and filed under this chapter until the determination of that application”). But, as the Court

4

stated in its order of April 12, 2013, “there is no indication that FINRA has adopted [this] California

5

rule[].” Docket No. 43 (Order at 2).

6

This order disposes of Docket No. 52.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: February 28, 2014

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

2