GW Holdings Group, LLC v. US Highland, Inc., 18 Civ. 4997 (JFK). (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20190523764
Visitors: 14
Filed: May 16, 2019
Latest Update: May 16, 2019
Summary: OPINION & ORDER JOHN F. KEENAN , District Judge . The Court hereby holds that it is divested of the jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff's pending motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 30) as (1) resolving that motion would control aspects of the case involved in the appeal ( see Kilpatrick v. Henkin , 17-CV-5111 (CM), 2018 WL 1684410, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2018) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. , 459 U.S. 56 , 58 (1982))) and (2) it is not one of the motions that Federal Rule
Summary: OPINION & ORDER JOHN F. KEENAN , District Judge . The Court hereby holds that it is divested of the jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff's pending motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 30) as (1) resolving that motion would control aspects of the case involved in the appeal ( see Kilpatrick v. Henkin , 17-CV-5111 (CM), 2018 WL 1684410, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2018) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. , 459 U.S. 56 , 58 (1982))) and (2) it is not one of the motions that Federal Rule ..
More
OPINION & ORDER
JOHN F. KEENAN, District Judge.
The Court hereby holds that it is divested of the jurisdiction to decide Plaintiff's pending motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 30) as (1) resolving that motion would control aspects of the case involved in the appeal (see Kilpatrick v. Henkin, 17-CV-5111 (CM), 2018 WL 1684410, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2018) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982))) and (2) it is not one of the motions that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) allows the Court to resolve after a notice of appeal has been filed.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
