Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02123/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02123-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 7, 2015∗

 Decided October 13, 2015

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 15-2123

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

IVAN RENE MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 12-C-271

Rudolph T. Randa, Judge.

Order

Our first decision in this case affirmed the district court’s judgment. Wells Fargo 

Bank, N.A. v. Moore, No. 14-2644 (7th Cir. Apr. 17, 2015) (nonprecedential disposition). 

We observed along the way that Wells Fargo Bank had not received full relief but that it 

had not filed a cross appeal, and we concluded that this did not make the judgment 

non-final.

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After 

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Case: 15-2123 Document: 13 Filed: 10/13/2015 Pages: 2
No. 15-2123 Page 2

After that order was released, the Bank asked the district court for the relief (foreclosure and replevin) that had been omitted from its judgment. It relies on Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(1), which permits post-judgment relief when a “mistake” has been made. The 

Bank characterized the incomplete judgment as a mistake. After our mandate issued, 

the district judge acknowledged that he had made a mistake in drafting the judgment 

and awarded the Bank the additional relief it had requested. 

Moore’s second appeal does not contest the substance of this decision. Instead he 

maintains that the district court lacked jurisdiction to act. Yet the court waited until our 

mandate had been issued. The principle that only one court at a time has jurisdiction 

means that, between the filing of the appeal and the issuance of the appellate mandate, 

the district court cannot act without the court of appeals’ permission. Once the mandate 

has issued, however, the district court’s authority resumes. Rule 60(b)(1) authorizes 

post-judgment relief, and appellate permission is unnecessary. Standard Oil Co. v. United 

States, 429 U.S. 17 (1976); LSJL Partnership v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 920 F.2d 476, 478 (7th Cir. 

1990). 

The Bank’s motion was filed within the year allowed for Rule 60(b)(1) motions, and 

the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Bank acted within a 

reasonable time after recognizing the mistake. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-2123 Document: 13 Filed: 10/13/2015 Pages: 2