Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-75/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIVERSAL TRADING & INVESTMENT

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PETRO MIKOLAYEVICH KIRITCHENKO, 

et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-99-3073 MMC (EDL)

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE

REQUEST TO SET CONFERENCE

Before the Court is plaintiff’s administrative request, filed February 6, 2008, to set a

conference for the purpose of scheduling “motions for entry of default, contempt, sanctions,

attorneys fees and to obtain relief from the Sept. 7, 2007, summary judgment order under

FRCP 60(b).” (See Pl.’s Admin. Request at 3:21-23.) 

Each of said proposed motions is predicated on plaintiff’s argument, made pursuant

to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the Court’s order filed September

7, 2007 (“September 7, 2007 Summary Judgment Order”), wherein the Court granted

summary judgment to defendants, is void. (See id. at 3:18-19.) Plaintiff has appealed the

September 7, 2007 Summary Judgment Order. (See Notice of Appeal filed October 15,

2007 at 1:26-27.) The pendency of such appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction to

decide plaintiff’s proposed Rule 60(b) motion and related motions. See Visioneering

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1798 Filed 02/08/08 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

2

Constr. & Dev. Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guar., 661 F. 2d 119, 124 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1981)

(“Once a notice of appeal is filed, jurisdiction is vested in the Court of Appeals, and the trial

court thereafter has no power to modify its judgment in the case or proceed further except

by leave of the Court of Appeals”); Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir. 1984)

(holding “district court did not have jurisdiction to decide the [Rule 60(b)] motion since the

case was on appeal”).

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s request to set a conference, for the

reason plaintiff has failed to show this Court would have jurisdiction to consider the motions

plaintiff proposes to schedule at such a conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1798 Filed 02/08/08 Page 2 of 2