David v. Sirius Computer Solutions
Filing
92
ORDER Denying for lack of jurisdiction 81 Motion for Reconsideration and finding as moot 87 Motion for Order, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 4/22/2014.(jsmit)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02030-RPM
DIANE DAVID,
Plaintiff,
v.
SIRIUS COMPUTER SOLUTIONS,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff Diane David’s Motion for Partial Relief from Order and
Reconsideration of Denial of Prejudgment Interest (“Motion for Reconsideration”) [Doc. 81]
and the parties’ briefing on Defendant Sirius Computer Solutions’ emergency motion to
declare David’s Motion for Reconsideration as moot [Doc. 87]. The Court concludes that
David’s Motion for Reconsideration is untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e),
and therefore was ineffective to toll her Notice of Appeal. Filing a notice of appeal transfers
the matter from the district court to the court of appeals. Burke v. Utah Transit Auth. &
Local 382, 462 F.3d 1253, 1264 (10th Cir. 2006). Although this Court retains jurisdiction
over collateral matters, prejudgment interest, the issue to which David’s appeal pertains, is
not collateral. Garcia v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 818 F.2d 713, 721 (10th Cir. 1987).
Upon the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff Diane David’s Motion for Partial Relief from Order and
Reconsideration of Denial of Prejudgment Interest [Doc. 81] is denied for lack of
jurisdiction.
Dated: April 22, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/Richard P. Matsch
______________________
Richard P. Matsch
Senior District Judge
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?