Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-04641-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALFRED LAM, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE CITY & COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 10-cv-4641-PJH 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION 

 On April 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed a “motion for reconsideration”1

 of the court’s order 

granting summary judgment. See Dkt. 211. Also on April 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice 

of appeal, and on April 5, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued a scheduling order, setting 

deadlines for the filing of appellate briefs. See Dkt. 212, 213. 

 The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly held that, “[o]nce a notice of appeal is filed, the 

district court is divested of jurisdiction over the matters being appealed.” See, e.g., 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Southwest Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1167 

(9th Cir. 2001) (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 

(1982); McClatchy Newspapers v. Central Valley Typographical Union No. 46, 686 F.2d 

731, 734 (9th Cir. 1982)). While the district court does retain jurisdiction in certain limited 

 

1

 While the motion is styled as a “motion for reconsideration,” the substance of the motion 

actually seeks relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(b), 59(e), and 60(b). And 

indeed, under this district’s local rules, motions for reconsideration may be filed only 

“[b]efore the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities 

of all the parties in a case.” Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Because the court has already entered 

judgment in this case, it construes plaintiffs’ motion as being brought under Rules 59 and 

60. 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 214 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

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 

circ

ap

be

the

Da

cumstance

ply in this c

en divested

e motion is 

IT IS S

ated: April 7

s, such as 

case. Thus

d of jurisdic

denied. 

SO ORDER

7, 2016 

“to act to p

s, because p

ction over p

RED. 

2

reserve the

plaintiffs ha

laintiff’s “m

__

PH

Un

e status quo

ave filed a n

otion for re

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

o,” those cir

notice of ap

considerati

__________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

rcumstance

ppeal, this c

ion,” and ac

__________

udge 

es do not 

court has 

ccordingly, 

_______ 

Case 4:10-cv-04641-PJH Document 214 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 2