From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Egberto v. McDaniel

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Oct 25, 2011
3:08-cv-00312-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2011)

Opinion

3:08-cv-00312-HDM-VPC.

October 25, 2011


ORDER


A notice of appeal was filed in this case on April 13, 2011. (Docket No. 163) On April 14, 2011, this court issued an order noting that it had been divested of jurisdiction to consider the following motions: Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 160), Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 161), Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time to File an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 165), and Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time to File an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 166). (See Docket No. 168)

The appeal is ongoing. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 states: "[i]f a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and pending, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue." Accordingly, the court hereby denies without prejudice the aforementioned motions (Docket Nos. 160, 161, 165, and 166).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Egberto v. McDaniel

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Oct 25, 2011
3:08-cv-00312-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2011)
Case details for

Egberto v. McDaniel

Case Details

Full title:NATALIE EGBERTO, and SARA SMITH, individually, jointly and on behalf of…

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Oct 25, 2011

Citations

3:08-cv-00312-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2011)