Austin v. Lyft, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Case No. 21-cv-09345-MMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 V. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 LYFT, INC., 44 Defendant. 12

2 13 The Court is in receipt of plaintiff's “Motion for Reconsideration, New Trial, 14 || Recusal,” filed September 9, 2022. 2 15 The Court having read and considered the motion, the motion is hereby Denied for a 16 || lack of subject matter jurisdiction, plaintiff's having filed a notice of appeal on September 17 5, 2022. See Davis v. U.S., 667 F.2d 822, 824 (9th Cir.1982) (“The filing of a notice of 5 18 || appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction over the matters appealed.”). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 || Dated: September 12, 2022 / afm LY. L, MAXINE M. CHESNEY 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28