Opinion ID: 628992
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Should the appeal be held in abeyance?

Text: 12 Having determined that we have jurisdiction over the appeal, we now address the issue of whether prudential concerns require us to hold Christy's appeal in abeyance until the district court rules upon the merits of his motion to reconsider. 3 We note that the Fifth Circuit has adopted such a rule. See Greenwood, 974 F.2d at 1468-69 (court takes a pragmatic approach rejecting the traditional notion of mutual exclusivity of jurisdiction). 4 13 Perhaps judicial economy will be best served in some cases, by allowing the district court to pass upon a motion for reconsideration that has been filed subsequent to a notice of appeal. However, this does not require us to adopt a per se rule that an appeal must be held in abeyance until the district court issues an advisory opinion about what it would do with the case if it had the opportunity. If an appellant believes that his motion should be ruled upon by the district court rather than the appellate court, he may move this Court to remand the case under Fed.R.App.P. 27. If we agree that the district court is peculiarly situated to consider the alleged error, we can then grant the appellant's motion to remand. 14 Except for his desire to receive an additional bite at the apple, Christy offers no reason why this case must be reviewed (again) by a district rather than an appellate court.