Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01063/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01063-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

19-CV-1063-DMS-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY SUSSMAN and MICHAEL 

SUSSMAN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-1063-DMS-JLB

ORDER DENYING RULE 60(b)

MOTION

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for relief from final judgment 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). For the reasons discussed below, the Court 

denies Plaintiff’s motion. 

I.

DISCUSSION1

On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a timely Notice of Appeal 

of the Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Five days later, Plaintiff 

 

1 The factual and procedural background of this case is set out in detail in the Court’s 

order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 

(“SAC”). ECF No. 111.

Case 3:19-cv-01063-DMS-JLB Document 124 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-CV-1063-DMS-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

moved for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), arguing the Court’s order is “based upon 

fraud or mistake.” ECF No. 118 at 1. 

It is well settled that the “filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of 

jurisdiction.” Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 790 F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1986). When a 

Rule 60(b) motion is filed in district court after a notice of appeal has been filed, the district 

court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the motion. Katzir Floor & Home Designs, Inc. v. MMLS.com, 394 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that the filing of a notice of appeal 

strips the district court of jurisdiction over the Rule 60(b) motion). “To seek Rule 60(b) 

relief during the pendency of an appeal, the proper procedure is to ask the district court 

whether it wishes to entertain the motion, or to grant it, and then move [the Ninth Circuit], 

if appropriate, for remand of the case.” Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir. 

2004). This procedure is set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, which provides:

(a) Relief Pending Appeal. If a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks 

authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the 

court may:

(1) defer considering the motion;

(2) deny the motion; or

(3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands 

for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue.

(b) Notice to the Court of Appeals. The movant must promptly notify the circuit 

clerk under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 if the district court states that 

it would grant the motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue.

(c) Remand. The district court may decide the motion if the court of appeals remands 

for that purpose.

Where an appellant fails to follow the above procedure, a district court has no jurisdiction 

to consider the merits of the Rule 60(b) motion. See Katzier Floor, 394 F.3d at 1148 

(vacating the district court’s order denying appellants’ Rule 60(b) motion). 

Here, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal before she moved for relief from judgment 

pursuant to Rule 60(b). Plaintiff also failed to follow the procedure set forth in Rule 62.1. 

Case 3:19-cv-01063-DMS-JLB Document 124 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-CV-1063-DMS-JLB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff’s motion and it is accordingly 

denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set out above, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion for lack 

of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01063-DMS-JLB Document 124 Filed 11/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3