Filed: Mar. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE KAREN E. SCHREIER , District Judge . This court entered its judgment for plaintiffs on January 12, 2015. Docket 51. On February 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to vacate the stay this court imposed on its judgment. Docket 65. Defendants 1 oppose the motion to vacate. The motion is denied. "A federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously. The filing of a notice of appe
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE KAREN E. SCHREIER , District Judge . This court entered its judgment for plaintiffs on January 12, 2015. Docket 51. On February 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to vacate the stay this court imposed on its judgment. Docket 65. Defendants 1 oppose the motion to vacate. The motion is denied. "A federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously. The filing of a notice of appea..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE
KAREN E. SCHREIER, District Judge.
This court entered its judgment for plaintiffs on January 12, 2015. Docket 51. On February 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to vacate the stay this court imposed on its judgment. Docket 65. Defendants1 oppose the motion to vacate. The motion is denied.
"A federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously. The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." United States v. Ledbetter, 882 F.2d 1345, 1347 (8th Cir. 1989) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam)). This court's judgment issued on January 12, 2015. Defendants filed a notice of appeal on January 26, 2015. Because a notice of appeal has been filed, this court no longer has jurisdiction to modify its judgment.2 As plaintiffs concede, they can request that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacate the stay. Docket 65 at 2.
If this court did have jurisdiction, it would apply the same standard applied by a court of appeals. See 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Fed. Practice & Procedure Civil § 2904 (3d ed.). In Lawson v. Missouri, No. 15-1022, a same-sex marriage case consolidated with this case on appeal, the plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to stay its judgment pending appeal and the Eighth Circuit refused to lift the stay. Docket 67-1. The facts in Lawson are not meaningfully distinct from the facts here. In imposing the stay, the Lawson court considered the same arguments made here by plaintiffs. The Supreme Court's refusal to impose a stay on other federal district court decisions is not precedential. Thus, the court sees no reason why its previous conclusion to grant the stay should be vacated. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to vacate the stay pending appeal (Docket 65) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to expedite defendants' response deadline (Docket 66) is denied as moot.
