“A district court may deny, but cannot grant, a Rule 59(e) motion pending after the filing of a notice of appeal.”
How later courts described this case
- “A district court may deny, but cannot grant, a Rule 59(e) motion pending after the filing of a notice of appeal.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
FELICIA AND JEROME STONE, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 4:20-cv-00352-SPM
)
J&M SECURITIES, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER VACATING THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM OPINION ENTERED
ON JANUARY 26, 2022
On January 26, 2022, the undersigned entered an order amending this Court’s
judgment dated September 30, 2021 and remanding this action to the Circuit Court
for the 22nd Judicial Circuit (the “Amended Judgment”) (Docs. 96 & 97). Since that
time, Defendant has filed a Motion to Correct a Manifest Error in Law (Doc. 101)
and a Motion to Stay a ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for Attorneys Fees (Doc. 104).
Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 98) and a Motion for Bill of
Costs (Doc. 99). The parties have also filed motions requesting an extension of time
to respond to pending motions. (Docs. 106 & 109). After carefully considering the
parties’ written submissions and the entire record before the Court, I find that this
Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the Amended Judgment and, for the reasons set out
below, I will grant the Defendant’s Motion to Correct Manifest Error in Law.
In its Motion to Correct a Manifest Error in Law, Defendant contends this
Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the Amended Judgment because, at the time the
Amended Judgment was entered, Plaintiffs had appealed the same issues raised in
their post-judgment motion to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Indeed,
following this Court’s entry of Judgment in Defendant’s favor on September 30,
2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 4, 2021 (Doc. 87).
While briefing was underway, on October 26, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their notice of
appeal of the Judgment, and the appeal was certified on October 27, 2021. Plaintiffs’
Statement of Issues filed with the appellate court names the precise issue that was
before this Court in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiffs’ submissions
to the appellate court failed to make mention of the posttrial motion pending before
this Court.
As Defendant correctly recites, “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.” Liddell by Liddell v. Bd. of Educ., 73 F.3d 819, 822 (8th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 74 L. Ed.
2d 225, 103 S. Ct. 400 (1982)). This is because the “continuation of proceedings in
the district court largely defeats the point of the appeal and creates a risk of
inconsistent handling of the case by two tribunals.” Id. (quoting McCauley v.
Halliburton Energy Servs., 413 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2005)).
As Defendant (again) correctly points out, to avoid divesting the district
court of jurisdiction over their motion, the “appropriate course of action” would
have been for Plaintiffs to ask the appellate court to “hold the appeal in abeyance.”
(Doc. 102, at p.5). “[H]old[ing] an appeal in abeyance while the district court
rule[s] on [a party’s] posttrial motions permit[s] the prematurely filed notice of
appeal to be perfected.” Life Plus Int'l v. Brown, 317 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir. 2003)
(citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i)); see also EEOC v. Rath Packing Co., 787
F.2d 318, 323 (8th Cir. 1986) (a ruling on a posttrial motion filed by the Appellants
was only appropriate when the Appellants held the appeal in abeyance to allow for
the ruling to be certified).
Plaintiffs did not follow the appropriate course of action in this case. As a
result, Plaintiffs divested this court of jurisdiction when they appealed identical
issues raised in their post-judgment motion and failed to hold the appeal in
abeyance pending a ruling by this Court on the post-judgment motions.
Consequently, the Court’s Amended Judgment which, essentially, granted
Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) motion, was rendered null and void. Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights v. Gonzales, 421 F. Supp. 2d 104, 107 (D.D.C. 2006) (“A district
court may deny, but cannot grant, a Rule 59(e) motion pending after the filing of a
notice of appeal.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Correct a Manifest
Error in Law (Doc. 101) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this Court’s Amended Judgment (Doc. 97)
and Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. 96) are VACATED and this Court’s
Judgment (Doc. 86) and Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. 85) are hereby
REINSTATED as the Final Judgment of this Court.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all other pending motions in this case are
DENIED as moot.
SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 8th day of March, 2022.