Cadle v. Jefferson et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 11/28/2017. For the reasons set forth, Defendant William J. Jefferson's 134 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal is DENIED AS MOOT. cc: Counsel; pro se Defendants(RLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
DANIEL C. CADLE, Individually and
Derivatively on Behalf of the Corporation
and the Shareholders of iGate, Inc.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-cv-00070-CRS
WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, ANDREA G.
JEFFERSON, THE ANJ GROUP, LLC,
VERNON L. JACKSON, and JOHN DOES
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter if before the Court on the motion of Defendant William J. Jefferson
(“Jefferson”) for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. (DN 134.) For the following
reasons, the Court will DENY Defendant’s motion as MOOT.
On August 10, 2017, Defendant Jefferson filed a motion for extension of time to file a
notice of appeal from the Order of Partial Summary Judgment entered by this Court on July 14,
2017. (DN 133; DN 134.) Jefferson subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal on September 14,
2017. (DN 135.)
On October 26, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit filed an
Opinion and Order dismissing Jefferson’s appeal. (DN 137.) The Court held that “The district
court has not entered its final decision during the pendency of this appeal; therefore, we lack
appellate jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal from the partial decision.” (Id.) This order
renders Jefferson’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal moot.
For the reasons set forth above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Defendant William
J. Jefferson’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal (DN 134) is DENIED AS
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 28, 2017
C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
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?