Cordova v. Univ. Hosp. & Clinics

2 Citing cases

  1. Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

    Civil Action 1:23-CV-281 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024)   1 Legal Analyses

    Snow Ingredients, Inc. v. Snowizard, Inc., 833 F.3d 512, 528 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc., 332 F.3d 796, 802 (5th Cir. 2003)); accord Cordova v. Univ. Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 92 F.4th 266, 273 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Mire v. Univ. Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 144 S.Ct. 2608 (2024); Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C., 955 F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir. 2020); Iris Connex, LLC v. Dell, Inc., 235 F.Supp.3d 826, 855 (E.D. Tex. 2017). “[T]he central purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in district court and thus . . . streamline the administration and procedure of the federal courts.” Cordova, 92 F.4th at 273 (quoting Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 393 (1990)).

  2. Dodson v. Nichols

    Civil Action 22-00423-BAJ-SDJ (M.D. La. Sep. 25, 2024)

    “As a general rule the effective filing of a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction from the district court to the court of appeals with respect to all matters involved in the appeal.” Cordova v. Univ. Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., 92 F.4th 266, 275 (5th Cir. 2024), cert, denied sub nom. Mire v. Univ. Hosp. & Clinics, Inc., No. 23-1192, 2024 WL 2805773 (U.S. June 3, 2024) (citations omitted). Nonetheless, an “exception is that . . . the district court retains jurisdiction to entertain and resolve a motion requesting attorney's fees or sanctions.