Herrera v. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd.

Opinion

1 2 3 6 WINIFREDO HERRERA, et al., 7 Case No. 20-cv-03019-JCS Plaintiffs, 8 Vv. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD., RECONSIDERATION WITHOUT Defendant. 11 Re: Dkt. No. 67 qg 12

13 On June 11, 2021, Defendant Cathay Pacific filed a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for

v 14 || Reconsideration (“Motion”) of the Court’s May 28, 2021 Order denying its Motion to Dismiss or © 15 in the Alternative, Compel Arbitration. Subsequently, it filed a Notice of Appeal of that Order to Q 16 || the Ninth Circuit. See dkt. no. 68. Because both the Motion and the appeal challenge the same

= 17 || decision, the Court concludes that it is divested of jurisdiction as to the Motion. See City of Los

18 Angeles, Harbor Div. vy. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he filing 19 of a notice of interlocutory appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over the particular issues 20 involved in that appeal.”). Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice. 22 23 Dated: June 28, 2021 24 J PH C. SPERO 25 ief Magistrate Judge 26 27 28