Wilms v. Laughlin

Full title: RASHELLE WILMS, Plaintiff, v. TOM LAUGHLIN, "BILLY JACK'S MORAL…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Oct 6, 2011

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01671-CMA-BNB (D. Colo. Oct. 6, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01671-CMA-BNB

10-06-2011

RASHELLE WILMS, Plaintiff, v. TOM LAUGHLIN, "BILLY JACK'S MORAL REVOLUTION" PARTNERSHIP, DOLORES TAYLOR, and TERESA LAUGHLIN, Defendants.

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT

AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion To Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 (Doc. # 94), and Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply (Doc. # 100). On July 15, 2011, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. # 80) with the Tenth Circuit.

District courts generally lose jurisdiction once a party files a notice of appeal. The Supreme Court has instructed that:

[A] federal district court and a federal court of appeals should not attempt to assert jurisdiction over a case simultaneously. The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance - it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). The Motion to Alter Judgment involves issues that are currently pending before the Tenth Circuit. Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction to alter the judgment.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion To Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59 (Doc. # 94) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply (Doc. # 100) is DENIED AS MOOT.

BY THE COURT:

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge