Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00987/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00987-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAREN CHAGANTI,

Plaintiff,

v

i2 PHONE INTERNATIONAL, INC, PAUL

ARENA AND DOES 1-20,

Defendants. /

No C 04-987 VRW

ORDER

On July 23, 2007, this court dismissed the claims against

defendants i2 Phone International, Inc and Paul Arena for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. Doc #100. The court held the claims

did not meet the amount in controversy requirement. Id. On July

24, 2007, the clerk entered judgment in favor of those defendants. 

Doc #101. On July 29, 2007, plaintiff Naren Chaganti timely moved

to set aside, vacate or revise the judgment under FRCP 59(e) and

FRCP 60. Doc #102. 

On August 20, 2007, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to

the Ninth Circuit. Doc #107. The clerk mailed the notice of

appeal to the clerk of the Ninth Circuit. Doc #108. Plaintiff did

not pay the filing fee. Doc #109. Nonetheless, the appeal remains

pending at the court of appeals.

Case 3:04-cv-00987-VRW Document 110 Filed 08/30/07 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

Because plaintiff has appealed the final judgment and the

appeal remains pending, this court cannot act on plaintiff’s

motion. “The filing of a notice of appeal divests the district

court of jurisdiction. Unless the appellate court remands to the

district court, the latter is without jurisdiction to consider

motions to vacate judgment.” Gould v Mutual Life Ins Co of NY, 790

F2d 769, 772 (9th Cir 1986), cited in Davis v Yageo Corp, 481 F3d

661, 685 (9th Cir 2007).

There is a well-established procedure to deal with

situations such as this. “The proper procedure, once an appeal has

been taken, is to ask the district court whether it wishes to

entertain the motion, or to grant it, and then move [the appeals]

court, if appropriate, for remand of the case.” Id (quotation

marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff having failed to invoke

this procedure, this court cannot act. Doc #102. 

The clerk is directed to STRIKE plaintiff’s motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00987-VRW Document 110 Filed 08/30/07 Page 2 of 2