Tobin v. City & County of San Francisco Police Department et al
Filing
120
ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James vacating hearing on and denying 116 Motion for Reconsideration. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
PATRICK J. TOBIN,
Case No. 13-cv-01504-MEJ
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER VACATING HEARING;
DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
v.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Dkt. No. 116
Defendants.
12
INTRODUCTION
13
14
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Patrick Tobin’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for
15
Reconsideration of the Order and Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (the
16
“Rule 60 Motion”). See Mot., Dkt. No. 116. Defendant City and County of San Francisco
17
(“Defendant”) filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 118); Plaintiff did not file a Reply.
18
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court
19
finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and hereby VACATES the
20
December 15, 2016 hearing in this matter. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES
21
Plaintiff’s Rule 60 Motion.
22
DISCUSSION
23
The Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on October 4, 2016, and
24
entered judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff on the same day. See Order, Dkt. No. 113;
25
J., Dkt. No. 114. Plaintiff filed the Rule 60 Motion on November 2, 2016, 29 days after the Court
26
entered judgment. See Mot. Plaintiff also appealed the Court’s Judgment, including but not
27
limited to all interlocutory orders, on November 3, 2016. Not. of Appeal, Dkt. No. 117.
28
“The filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction over the
1
matters appealed.” Davis v. U.S., 667 F.2d 822, 824 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Apple, Inc. v.
2
Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012 WL 1987042, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2012) (“The general rule is that
3
once a notice of appeal is filed it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district
4
court of jurisdiction with respect to matters involved with the appeal.” (citing Griggs v. Provident
5
Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 59 (1982)). A limited exception allows district courts to
6
exercise jurisdiction to decide a Rule 60 Motion if the motion is filed within 28 days after the
7
judgment is entered. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i); see also ConocoPhillips Co. v. Milestone
8
Pac. Props., LLC, 2010 WL 4608223, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2010) (“[U]nder Federal Rule of
9
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B) (i), a notice of appeal does not become effective, and the district
court does not lose jurisdiction, until the district court rules on all motions for reconsideration filed
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
no later than twenty-eight days after judgment is entered.”) (emphasis in original)).
12
Because Plaintiff did not file the Rule 60 Motion within 28 days after this Court entered
13
judgment, the Rule 60 Motion was not “pending” under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(B)(i) when Plaintiff
14
filed his notice of appeal. The Court accordingly was divested of jurisdiction on November 3,
15
2016 and therefore must deny the Motion as untimely. See ConocoPhillips Co., 2010 WL
16
4608223, at *1 (where defendants filed both Rule 60 motion for reconsideration and notice of
17
appeal 30 days after judgment entered, court denied Rule 60 motion as untimely because filing of
18
notice of appeal divested court of jurisdiction).
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
22
23
Dated: November 28, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?