Ace Investors v. Rubin

Filing 284

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order for Supplemental Briefing. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 05/15/2012. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

ACE INVESTORS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

vs.

MARGERY RUBIN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE
RUBIN FAMILY IRREVOCABLE STOCK
TRUST,

Case No. 2:08-CV-289 TS

Defendant.

The following issues are before the Court for consideration: (1) Plaintiff’s Omnibus
Motion (Docket No. 125); Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to Show Cause (Docket No. 241); (3) the
Magistrate Judge’s Order Certifying Facts Regarding Contempt (Docket No. 266); and (4) the
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims Against Garnishees (Docket No. 267). The Court has set
these matters for an evidentiary hearing on June 29, July 10, and July 11, 2012.

1

The Court is concerned with its authority to consider these matters as a result of the
Notice of Appeal filed by the Garnishees.1 In their appeal, Garnishees challenge the Court’s
order finding personal jurisdiction, as well as the Court’s Order for Restraint.
In general, the filing of a notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and
divests the district court of jurisdiction over those issues involved in the appeal.2 “Any
subsequent action by [the district court] is null and void.”3 However, the district court retains
jurisdiction over collateral matters.4
The parties have not addressed how the appeal in this case may affect the Court’s ability
to rule on the issues before it. As a result, the Court requests supplemental briefing on the issue
of whether the Court has the authority to rule on the above-listed matters while the appeal is
pending. The Court further requests the parties’ position on whether, assuming the Court has the
authority to rule on these matters, the Court should await decision from the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals before doing so.
Each party may submit a brief, limited to ten (10) pages of argument, on these two
questions by May 30, 2012. The hearing set for June 29, July 10, and July 11, 2012, will remain
as scheduled.
SO ORDERED.
DATED May 15, 2012.
1

Docket No. 189.

2

See Garcia v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 818 F.2d 713, 721 (10th Cir. 1987).

3

Id.

4

Id.
2

BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

3