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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 9, 1983

Docket83-5793

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 720 F.2d 1019 (Bestran Corporation, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

720 F.2d 1019, 38 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 388, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 15429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bestran-corporation-plaintiff-counterdefendant-appellant-v-eagle-ca9-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack