Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wright v. Eastman Kodak Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


July 22, 2008

KENNETH WRIGHT, PLAINTIFF,
v.
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
GARY THOMPSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: David G. Larimer United States District Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

By Decision and Order entered April 23, 2008 (Dkt.#41), I granted defendant Eastman Kodak Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaints in these actions. Judgment was entered on April 25, 2008 (Dkt. #42).

On May 7, 2008, both plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment of this court. The Second Circuit has issued a scheduling order on the case.

After filing the notice of appeal, plaintiff filed what was styled as a motion to reconsider (Dkt. #45), purportedly under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6).

Because plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain any further applications or motions relative to the case. See Pittock v. Otis Elevator Co., 8 F.3d 325, 327 (6th Cir. 1993) ("the district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the Rule 60(b) motion after the Pittocks filed a notice of appeal concerning the dismissal order"); Johnson v. Lewis, No. 06-22, 2007 WL 106524, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 11, 2007) (court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff's motion to reconsider filed on November 16, since plaintiff's notice of appeal became effective on October 23); LaSalle Bank, N.A. v. Capco American Securitization Corp., No. 02 CV. 9916, 2006 WL 1227539, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2006) ("A district court can ordinarily reconsider any order, but after a party appeals a final judgment the court cannot") (footnote omitted). For that reason, plaintiffs' motion to reconsider is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Rochester, New York

20080722

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.