Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05875/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05875-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS ALBIZU, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CLYDE A. STROHL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 02-5875 AWI SMS

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

REQUEST APPEAL OF FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(Document #143)

On November 14, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and a Recommendation that

Plaintiff’s application for default judgment be granted. The Findings and Recommendation were

served on all parties

On December7, 2005, Defendants filed a document entitled “NOTICE OF MOTION

AND MOTION TO REQUEST AN APPEAL TO THE FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE: WESLEY E. AMUNDSON AND AMUNDSON AND

ASSOCIATES DATED NOVEMBER 10, 2005.” 

On December 27, 2005, the court adopted the November 14, 2005 Findings and

Recommendations, granted Plaintiff’s application for default judgment, and directed the Clerk of

the Court to enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiff Jesus Albizu against Defendants Wesley E.

Amundson and Amundson and Associates for $157,800.00 in damages; prejudgment interest at

the rate of ten per cent per annum from May 13, 2002; punitive damages in the sum of

$306,000.00; and treble damages in the amount of $306,000.00. On December 27, 2005, the

Clerk of the Court entered judgment.

Case 1:02-cv-05875-AWI -SMS Document 147 Filed 01/10/06 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

Pending before the court is Defendants’ December 7, 2005 motion to request an appeal. 

In general, the filing a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction over the matters appealed to the

court of appeals, and the district court generally is divested of jurisdiction over those aspects of

the case involved in the appeal. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58

(1982) (per curiam); Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2001). However, a

notice of appeal from a nonappealable order will not divest the district court of jurisdiction. 

Estate of Conners by Meredith v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v.

Garner, 663 F.2d 834, 838 (9th Cir.1981); Ruby v. Secretary of the Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th

Cir.1966) (en banc). 

Here, Defendants attempted to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendation, which was not an appealable order. By adopting the Findings and

Recommendations and granting default judgment, on December 27, 2005, the court issued a final

order that can be appealed.

Accordingly, Defendants’ December 7, 2005 motion to request an appeal is DENIED as

moot and unnecessary.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05875-AWI -SMS Document 147 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 2