Herbert Ray Gormong v. Local Union 613, Ibew, Harry Bexley, Slim Ellington, Charles H. Pillard and Dan H. Waters

Eleventh Circuit

Herbert Ray Gormong v. Local Union 613, Ibew, Harry Bexley, Slim Ellington, Charles H. Pillard and Dan H. Waters

714 F.2d 1109, 37 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 879, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16851

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedSeptember 16, 1983

Docket83-8373

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 714 F.2d 1109 (Herbert Ray Gormong v. Local Union 613, Ibew, Harry Bexley, Slim Ellington, Charles H. Pillard and Dan H. Waters) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herbert Ray Gormong v. Local Union 613, Ibew, Harry Bexley, Slim Ellington, Charles H. Pillard and Dan H. Waters, 714 F.2d 1109, 37 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 879, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16851 (11th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

This case is before the court on appellant’s motion to file brief out of time. The motion is DENIED. In reviewing the file, we note that on April 21, 1983, the district court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to dismiss his action without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). On April 22, 1983, the Clerk of the District Court entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, which was obviously a mistake. On May 20, 1983, plaintiff filed his notice of appeal, bringing the case to this court.

On May 24, 1983, the district court sua sponte entered an order vacating the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). While the district court was correct in its reliance on Rule 60(a) for the purposes of correcting the erroneous judgment, it apparently overlooked the fact that an appeal had been docketed in this court. Rule 60(a) provides that:

During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with the leave of the appellate court, (emphasis added)

The order of the district court was entered at a time when technically the district court did not have jurisdiction of this case, jurisdiction having been transferred to this court. The facts in this case are similar to those in Huey v. Teledyne, Inc., 608 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir.1979). In that case the appellate court found that because the district court was powerless to correct its earlier order, the circumstances required a remand so that the district court could enter a valid order. Id. at 1237.

We are therefore relinquishing jurisdiction of this case to the United States District Court for the entry of an order vacating the judgment erroneously entered on April 22, 1983. Upon entry of that order, and receipt of a copy of it in the file of this court, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal.

REMANDED for entry of order vacating erroneous judgment, whereupon the case is DISMISSED in this court.

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

BY THE COURT:

This case is before the court on appellant’s motion to file brief out of time. The motion is DENIED. In reviewing the file, we note that on April 21, 1983, the district court granted plaintiff’s unopposed motion to dismiss his action without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). On April 22, 1983, the Clerk of the District Court entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, which was obviously a mistake. On May 20, 1983, plaintiff filed his notice of appeal, bringing the case to this court.

On May 24, 1983, the district court sua sponte entered an order vacating the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). While the district court was correct in its reliance on Rule 60(a) for the purposes of correcting the erroneous judgment, it apparently overlooked the fact that an appeal had been docketed in this court. Rule 60(a) provides that:

During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with the leave of the appellate court, (emphasis added)

The order of the district court was entered at a time when technically the district court did not have jurisdiction of this case, jurisdiction having been transferred to this court. The facts in this case are similar to those in Huey v. Teledyne, Inc., 608 F.2d 1234 (9th Cir.1979). In that case the appellate court found that because the district court was powerless to correct its earlier order, the circumstances required a remand so that the district court could enter a valid order. Id. at 1237.

We are therefore relinquishing jurisdiction of this case to the United States District Court for the entry of an order vacating the judgment erroneously entered on April 22, 1983. Upon entry of that order, and receipt of a copy of it in the file of this court, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal.

REMANDED for entry of order vacating erroneous judgment, whereupon the case is DISMISSED in this court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

714 F.2d 1109, 37 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 879, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 16851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbert-ray-gormong-v-local-union-613-ibew-harry-bexley-slim-ellington-ca11-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack