Opinion ID: 75587
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: discussion: the delayed class

Text: CERTIFICATION ORDER In their second appeal, defendants challenge the district court’s February 11, 2000 order formally granting class certification, which was entered approximately three months after the defendants had filed their notice of appeal from the contempt order, and four years after the final judgment was entered. We have already recognized the existence of an implied class in this case and have directed the district court on remand to formally enter an order reflecting it, which takes most of the weight off this part of the consolidated appeal, but the defendants are entitled to have their appeal of the district court’s February 11, 2000 order, which is still on the books, decided. Defendants primarily contest the delayed certification order on jurisdictional grounds. They assert that their act of filing the notice of appeal from the district court’s contempt order divested the district court of jurisdiction to take further action in the case. They are correct that, as a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case that are the subject of the appeal. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S. Ct. 400, 402 (1982); Weaver v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 172 F.3d 771, 773 (11th Cir. 1999). However, it may not divest the district court of jurisdiction over collateral matters not affecting the questions presented on appeal. 57 See Weaver, 172 F.3d at 773; cf. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Smith, 53 F.3d 72, 76 (5th Cir. 1995) (the district court maintains jurisdiction to order stays or modify injunctive relief). The existence or non-existence of a class certification order was one of the issues on appeal from the contempt order. In their appeal of the contempt order, defendants argued that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction on remand by requiring class-wide relief in a case where no class had ever been certified. Thus, the existence of a certified class is an “aspect of the case” that is the subject of the appeal. See Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58, 103 S. Ct. at 402. Accordingly, defendants’ filing of the notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction to enter an order that directly impacted one of the questions proffered for review.25 The February 11, 2000 order should be vacated. IV CONCLUSION We REVERSE the district court’s October 7, 1999 contempt order, and its February 11, 2000 class certification order. We REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 25 Our decision that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the class certification order renders moot the defendants’ other arguments about that order. 58 59