Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01888/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-01888-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WANXIA LIAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

RONALD QUIDACHAY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-1888 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

On January 24, 2007, the Court granted Defendants' motion to

dismiss and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. On February

12, 2007, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking review of

various orders, including the January 24, 2007 order. On February

23, 2007, Plaintiff moved in this Court for relief from the

judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. 

"The filing of a timely and sufficient notice of appeal has

the effect of immediately transferring jurisdiction from the

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 59 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

district court to the court of appeals with respect to any matters

involved in the appeal." G & M, Inc. v. Newbern, 488 F.2d 742, 746

(9th Cir. 1973) (internal citations omitted). The district court

is divested of authority to proceed further with respect to such

matters except in aid of appeal, to correct clerical errors, or to

aid in the execution of a judgment that has not been superseded. 

In re Thorp, 655 F.2d 997, 998 (9th Cir. 1981). The purpose of

this rule is to avoid the confusion and waste of time that might

flow from putting the same issues before two courts at the same

time. Id.

The Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's motion, which

seeks reconsideration on legal grounds of an order which is on

appeal. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for

reconsideration (Docket No. 53).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/11/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01888-CW Document 59 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 2