Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05875/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05875-8/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

(Documents #143 & #148)

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 157 Filed 08/18/06 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

On January 17, 2006, Defendants filed an amended motion to request an appeal of the

findings and recommendations.

Defendants’ motions to appeal the findings and recommendations have been

administratively termed as outstanding motions. 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 (9 Cir. 2001). However, a notice of appeal from a nonappealable th

order will not divest the district court of jurisdiction. Estate of Conners by Meredith v.

O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9 Cir. 1993); United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d 834, 838 (9 th th

Cir.1981); Ruby v. Secretary of the Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9 Cir.1966) (en banc). th

Here, Defendants have filed motions attempting to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendation, which were 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 (Document #143) motion to request an

appeal and January 17, 2006 (Document #148) motion to request an appeal are DENIED as moot

and unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05875-AWI -SMS Document 157 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 2