Godino v. Countrywide KB Home Loans et al

Filing 28

ORDER Denying for Lack of Jurisdiction 19 Motion to Certify Question to the Nevada Supreme Court. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/27/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9

2:11-CV-1216 JCM (PAL)

SCOTT GODINO, JR.,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

v.
COUNTRYWIDE KB HOME LOANS,
et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16

ORDER
Presently before the court is plaintiff Scott Godino, Jr.’s motion to certify question to the

17

Nevada Supreme Court.

(Doc. #19). Defendant First American Title Insurance Company

18

(improperly named as First American Title Company of Nevada) filed an opposition. (Doc. #24).

19

Defendants BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, Countrywide KB Home Loans, Mortgage Electronic

20

Registration Systems, Inc., and Recontrust Company also filed an opposition. (Doc. #25). Plaintiff

21

then filed replies to both of these oppositions. (Docs. #26 and #27).

22

On December 8, 2011, this court entered an order dismissing the complaint for failure to state

23

a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. #17). The clerk of court entered judgment on the

24

same day. (Doc. #18). Thirteen days later, plaintiff filed the instant motion. (Doc. #19). One week

25

after filing the instant motion, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. #29).

26

Although the notice of appeal states that plaintiff is appealing this court’s December 8, 2011,

27

denial of a preliminary injunction, a motion for preliminary injunction was never filed in this case.

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Indeed, the only entries on the docket on December 8, 2011, are the court’s order dismissing the

2

complaint and the clerk’s judgment. (See Docs. #17 and #18). Accordingly, the court interprets

3

plaintiff’s notice of appeal as an appeal of the court’s dismissal.

4

“The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance–it confers

5

jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of

6

the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58

7

(1982). This rule of appellate jurisdiction is “designed to avoid the confusion and inefficiency of

8

two courts considering the same issues simultaneously.” Masalosalo by Masalosalo v. Stonewall

9

Ins. Co., 718 F.2d 955, 956 (9th Cir. 1983). While there are narrow exceptions to the exclusive

10

appellate jurisdiction principle, any action that the district court takes after entry of the notice of

11

appeal “may not materially alter the status of the case on appeal.” Natural Resources Defense

12

Council, Inc. v. Southwest Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001).

13

Accordingly,

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff Scott Godino,

15

Jr.’s motion to certify question to the Nevada Supreme Court (doc. #19) be, and the same hereby is,

16

DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.

17

DATED February 27, 2012.

18
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-