Filed: May 09, 2016
Latest Update: May 09, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MODIFYING ORDER DATED OCTOBER 22, 2015 AMIT P. MEHTA , District Judge . On September 9, 2015, and September 16, 2015, Plaintiff Linwood Gray filed Motions to Alter or Amend Judgment (collectively "Motions for Reconsideration"), ECF Nos. 34-35, which were denied by the court on October 22, 2015, Order, ECF No. 41. It recently has come to the court's attention that it erroneously denied Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration, because the court lacked jurisdicti
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MODIFYING ORDER DATED OCTOBER 22, 2015 AMIT P. MEHTA , District Judge . On September 9, 2015, and September 16, 2015, Plaintiff Linwood Gray filed Motions to Alter or Amend Judgment (collectively "Motions for Reconsideration"), ECF Nos. 34-35, which were denied by the court on October 22, 2015, Order, ECF No. 41. It recently has come to the court's attention that it erroneously denied Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration, because the court lacked jurisdictio..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MODIFYING ORDER DATED OCTOBER 22, 2015
AMIT P. MEHTA, District Judge.
On September 9, 2015, and September 16, 2015, Plaintiff Linwood Gray filed Motions to Alter or Amend Judgment (collectively "Motions for Reconsideration"), ECF Nos. 34-35, which were denied by the court on October 22, 2015, Order, ECF No. 41.
It recently has come to the court's attention that it erroneously denied Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration, because the court lacked jurisdiction to do so in light of Plaintiff's filing of a notice of appeal. See United States v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293, 1302 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ("The filing of a notice of appeal, including an interlocutory appeal, `confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.'") (quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam)). Instead, what the court should have done was issue an indicative ruling that it would deny the Motions for Reconsideration upon remand. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a). The court, therefore, modifies its Order so as not to "den[y]" Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration, Order at 1, but to indicate that the court would deny those Motions upon remand.
For the foregoing reasons, the court's Order dated October 22, 2015, is modified as described above.
