Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01560/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01560-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES L. ABRAHAMS,

Debtor/Appellant

Case No. 12cv1560-GPC-BGS

BAP No. SC-12-1319

Bankruptcy No. 10-00968

ORDER DENYING

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO

AMEND THE JUDGMENT

AND VACATE DISMISSAL

[ECF No. 62]

vs.

MATHIAS HENTZ,

 

 Creditor/Appellee.

Before the Court is Appellant Charles L. Abrahams’ (“Appellant” or

“Abrahams”) motion to amend the judgment. (Dkt. No. 62.) Pursuant to L.Civ.R.

7.1.d.1, the Court findsthe matter suitable for adjudication without oral argument. For

the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby DENIES Appellant’s motion as moot. 

DISCUSSION

On June 18, 2013, this Court issued an Order granting Trustee Leslie

Gladstone’s motion to dismiss Abraham’s bankruptcy appeal. (Dkt. No. 54,

“Judicial Order.”) On July 19, 2013, Abrahams appealed the Judicial Order and

filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

(Dkt. No. 56.) Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit issued a case number and schedule

order as to Abraham’s appeal. (Dkt. Nos. 59, 60.) 

- 1 - 12cv1560-GPC-BGS

Case 3:12-cv-01560-GPC-BGS Document 65 Filed 10/31/13 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

In opposition to Appellant’s motion, Trustee Gladstone argues this Court

lacks jurisdiction to grant Appellant’s motion as the notice of appeal has been filed

and any relief would change the nature of the issue on appeal. (Dkt. No. 63 at 4-5.) 

The Court concurs with Trustee. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount

Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) ( “The filing of a notice of appeal ... confers jurisdiction

on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects

of the case involved in the appeal”). As the Court has been divested of its’

jurisdiction pending Abraham’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the Court hereby

DENIES AS MOOT Appellant’s motion to amend the judgement and vacate the

dismissal. (Dkt. No. 62.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 31, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv1560-GPC-BGS

Case 3:12-cv-01560-GPC-BGS Document 65 Filed 10/31/13 Page 2 of 2