Gortat v. Capala Brothers, Inc.

26 Citing cases

  1. Masri v. Liebowitz

    1:24-CV-1284 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 29, 2024)

    Accordingly and alternatively, Plaintiff's appeal is plainly defective; this Court thus retains jurisdiction of this action. See Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 252 (deeming a notice of appeal from a non-final order to be “premature” and a “nullity,” and holding that the notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction); Slayton, 460 F.3d at 224; China Nat'l Chartering Corp., 882 F.Supp.2d at 595; Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc., No. 07-CV-3629, 2008 WL 5273960, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008) (Gold, M.J.) (“An exception . . . [to the general rule that an appeal deprives a district court of jurisdiction] applies where it is clear that the appeal is defective, for example, because the order appealed from is not final and has not been certified for an interlocutory appeal.

  2. Gorneff v. Ilishayev

    23-CV-9141 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 17, 2024)

    Because Plaintiff is attempting to appeal from a nonfinal order that has not been certified for interlocutory appeal, the notice of appeal is “premature” and a “nullity.” See, e.g., Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 252 (holding that notice of appeal from a nonfinal order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction); Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc., No. 07-CV-3629 (ILG), 2008 WL 5273960, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008) (“An exception . . . [to the general rule that an appeal deprives a district court of jurisdiction] applies where it is clear that the appeal is defective, for example, because the order appealed from is not final and has not been certified for an interlocutory appeal.”). Accordingly, this Court retains jurisdiction of this action.

  3. Rodriguez v. Sky, 605 W 42 St. Owner, LLC

    23-CV-8034 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 12, 2024)

    Because Plaintiff is attempting to appeal from a nonfinal order that has not been certified for interlocutory appeal, the notice of appeal is “premature” and a “nullity.” See, e.g., Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 252 (holding that notice of appeal from a nonfinal order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction); Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc., No. 07-CV-3629 (ILG), 2008 WL 5273960, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008) (“An exception . . . [to the general rule that an appeal deprives a district court of jurisdiction] applies where it is clear that the appeal is defective, for example, because the order appealed from is not final and has not been certified for an interlocutory appeal.”). Accordingly, this Court retains jurisdiction of this action.

  4. Ruiz v. United States

    23-CV-7421 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 24, 2024)

    Because Plaintiff is attempting to appeal from a nonfinal order that has not been certified for interlocutory appeal, the notice of appeal is “premature” and a “nullity.” See, e.g., Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 252 (holding that notice of appeal from a nonfinal order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction); Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc., No. 07-CV-3629 (ILG), 2008 WL 5273960, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008) (“An exception . . . [to the general rule that an appeal deprives a district court of jurisdiction] applies where it is clear that the appeal is defective, for example, because the order appealed from is not final and has not been certified for an interlocutory appeal.”)

  5. Motley v. Janae Rocquel Motley Estate

    1:23-CV-10268 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2024)

    Accordingly, this Court retains jurisdiction of this action. See, e.g., Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 252 (deeming a notice of appeal from a non-final order to be “premature” and a “nullity,” and holding that the notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction); Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc., No. 07-CV-3629, 2008 WL 5273960, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008) (Gold, M.J.) (“An exception . . . [to the general rule that an appeal deprives a district court of jurisdiction] applies where it is clear that the appeal is defective, for example, because the order appealed from is not final and has not been certified for an interlocutory appeal.”); see also Scamp v. Higgins Family Trust, No. 23-CV-1418 (LTS), 2023 WL 2664098, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2023) (“Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in response to an order directing her to pay the fees or submit an IFP application.

  6. Torres v. The Blackstone Group.

    23-CV-7832 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2024)

    Because Plaintiff is attempting to appeal from a nonfinal order that has not been certified for interlocutory appeal, the notice of appeal is “premature” and a “nullity.” See, e.g., Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 252 (holding that notice of appeal from a nonfinal order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction); Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc., No. 07-CV-3629 (ILG), 2008 WL 5273960, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008) (“An exception . . . [to the general rule that an appeal deprives a district court of jurisdiction] applies where it is clear that the appeal is defective, for example, because the order appealed from is not final and has not been certified for an interlocutory appeal.”)

  7. Ex parte Mikanda v. Trump

    1:23-CV-8359 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2023)

    Accordingly, this Court retains jurisdiction of this action. See, e.g., Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 252 (deeming a notice of appeal from a non-final order to be “premature” and a “nullity,” and holding that the notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction); Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc., No. 07-CV-3629, 2008 WL 5273960, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008) (“An exception . . . [to the general rule that an appeal deprives a district court of jurisdiction] applies where it is clear that the appeal is defective, for example, because the order appealed from is not final and has not been certified for an interlocutory appeal.”); see also Scamp v. Higgins Family Trust, No. 23-CV-1418, 2023 WL 2664098, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2023)

  8. Mathieu v. Cazi

    23-CV-8663 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Because Mathieu's appeal from a non-reviewable remand order is improper for the same reasons this Court's review of the order is improper, the notice of appeal does not itself divest this Court of jurisdiction to consider Mathieu's motion. See, e.g., China Nat. Chartering Corp. v. Pactrans Air & Sea, Inc., 882 F.Supp.2d 579, 595 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (the jurisdictional divestiture rule “does not apply where an appeal is frivolous[,][n]or does it apply to untimely or otherwise defective appeals” (citing In re Chevron Corp., 749 F.Supp.2d 170, 179 (S.D.N.Y.2010))); Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc., 07-CV-3629, 2008 WL 5273960, *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008) (“A district court may ignore an appeal from a non-appealable order and proceed to exercise jurisdiction over a case”);

  9. Hall v. Shelter

    23-CV-6965 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2023)

    Because Plaintiff is attempting to appeal from a nonfinal order that has not been certified for interlocutory appeal, the notice of appeal is “premature” and a “nullity.” See, e.g., Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 252 (holding that notice of appeal from a nonfinal order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction); Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc., No. 07-CV-3629 (ILG), 2008 WL 5273960, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008) (“An exception . . . [to the general rule that an appeal deprives a district court of jurisdiction] applies where it is clear that the appeal is defective, for example, because the order appealed from is not final and has not been certified for an interlocutory appeal.”)

  10. Carter v. Jenkins

    22-CV-10326 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 25, 2023)

    See, e.g., Rodgers, 101 F.3d at 252 (deeming a notice of appeal from a nonfinal order to be “premature” and a “nullity,” and holding that the notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction); Gortat v. Capala Bros., Inc., 07-CV-3629 (ILG), 2008 WL 5273960, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2008) (“An exception . . . [to the general rule that an appeal deprives a district court of jurisdiction] applies where it is clear that the appeal is defective, for example, because the order appealed from is not final and has not been certified for an interlocutory appeal.”). CONCLUSION