Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00644/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00644-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

Hearing on Defendant’s summary judgment motion had been set for 1:30 p.m. on June 2, 2008. The Court 1

issued an order on May 21, 2008, in which it informed Plaintiff that no opposition had been filed, that Plaintiff

forfeited his right to be heard at oral argument, and that the matter would be taken under submission as of June 2,

2008. At 2:50 p.m. on June 2, 2008, Plaintiff filed a late opposition. There was no explanation why the opposition

was late, there was no request for the Court to consider the late opposition, there was no request for an extension of

time, and the opposition failed to comply with Local Rule 56-260. Given those circumstances, the Court struck the

opposition.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORIO TEJADA, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CON-AGRA FOODS, INC., a business )

entity, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, )

)

Defendant. )

)

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-644 AWI DLB

ORDER VACATING AUGUST

11, 2008, HEARING AND

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S

RULE 60(b) MOTION

(Doc. No. 49)

This is a California FEHA case in which Plaintiff Gregorio Tejada claims that he was

improperly discriminated against due to a physical disability. On June 4, 2008, this Court

granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See Court’s Docket Doc. No. 46. In

resolving the summary judgment motion, the Court struck a late filed opposition. See Court’s

Docket Doc. No. 45. On July 3, 2008, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. See Court’s Docket 1

Doc. No. 48. On July 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed this Rule 60(b) motion. See Court’s Docket Doc.

No. 49. In his Rule 60(b) motion, Plaintiff requests that he should be given relief on the bases

that his attorney engaged in excusable neglect and that the Court committed clear error. Plaintiff

states that a Rule 60(b)(1) may be permitted during the time a case is pending on appeal. 

Case 1:06-cv-00644-AWI-DLB Document 60 Filed 08/07/08 Page 1 of 2
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

However, even if Plaintiff had properly followed the Ninth Circuit procedure, after reviewing the papers,

2

the Court would not wish to entertain the motion.

2

In the Ninth Circuit, the “filing of the 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

lack[s] jurisdiction to entertain the Rule 60(b) motion . . . .” Katzir Floor & Home Designs, Inc.

v. M-MLS.com, 394 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2004); see Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567,

586 (9th Cir. 2004); Carriger v. Lewis, 971 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir. 1992). “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 this court, if appropriate, for remand

of the case.” Williams, 384 F.3d at 586; see Carriger, 971 F.2d at 332 (“Carriger should have

filed a motion asking the district court to indicate its willingness to entertain his Rule 60(b)

motion.”). Where an appellant does not follow this procedure, a district court’s order on the Rule

60(b) motion is void for lack of jurisdiction. See Katzir Floor, 394 F.3d at 1148 (vacating

district court’s order denying a post-notice of appeal Rule 60(b) motion where procedure not

followed); Williams, 384 F.3d at 586 (same); Carriger, 971 F.2d at 332 (same). Here, Plaintiff

has simply filed a Rule 60(b) motion and has not followed the Ninth Circuit procedure for

revesting this Court with jurisdiction. This Court remains without jurisdiction and the motion

must be denied. See Katzir Floor, 394 F.3d at 1148; Williams, 384 F.3d at 586; Carriger, 971 2

F.2d at 332.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the August 11, 2008, hearing is

VACATED and Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00644-AWI-DLB Document 60 Filed 08/07/08 Page 2 of 2