Bestran Corporation, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee

Ninth Circuit

Bestran Corporation, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee

720 F.2d 1019, 38 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 388, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15429

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided November 9, 1983·No. 83-5793·Published·Cited by 30 cases

Opinion

Bestran appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion for injunction restraining Eagle from prosecuting an identical action in New York. After the denial of the motion for injunction, Bestran filed a timely motion for reconsideration “pursuant to Local Rule 3.16 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 59(e).” Thirty days after the denial of the injunction, but before the district court had ruled on the motion for reconsideration, Bestran filed its notice of appeal.

A timely filed motion for reconsideration under a local rule is a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed.R. Civ.P. 59(e). See Gainey v. Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, 303 F.2d 716, 718 (3d Cir.1962). A notice of appeal is null if filed while a timely motion under Fed.R. Civ.P. 59(e) is pending before the district court. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 400, 403, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1983); Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).

The appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bestran appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion for injunction restraining Eagle from prosecuting an identical action in New York. After the denial of the motion for injunction, Bestran filed a timely motion for reconsideration “pursuant to Local Rule 3.16 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 59(e).” Thirty days after the denial of the injunction, but before the district court had ruled on the motion for reconsideration, Bestran filed its notice of appeal.

A timely filed motion for reconsideration under a local rule is a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed.R. Civ.P. 59(e). See Gainey v. Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, 303 F.2d 716, 718 (3d Cir.1962). A notice of appeal is null if filed while a timely motion under Fed.R. Civ.P. 59(e) is pending before the district court. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 400, 403, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1983); Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).

The appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Bestran Corporation, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee, 720 F.2d 1019, 38 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 388, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15429 (9th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

720 F.2d 1019 (Bestran Corporation, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related