Case Name: Richard DISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-22
Citations: 214 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 04-3073
Parties: Richard DISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
Richard DISHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-3073.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 21, 2006.
Decided Jan. 22, 2007.
Robert L. King, Korein Tillery, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richard Rosen, Walter Rieman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York, NY, Scott C. Hecht, Stinson, Morrison & Hecker, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
This case is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court vacated our earlier judgment, see Disher v. Citigroup Global, 419 F.3d 649 (7th Cir.2005), and remanded the case to us with instructions to reconsider our earlier determination in light of Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2145, 165 L.Ed.2d 92 (2006). See Disher v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 548 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2964, 165 L.Ed.2d 947 (2006).
Kircher came from this circuit, and we already have taken action in that matter in light of the decision of the Supreme Court. See In the Matter of Mutual Fund Market-Timing Litigation, 468 F.3d 439 (7th Cir.2006). The same action is appropriate here. Accordingly, because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED for WANT of JURISDICTION.