Bestran Corp. v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 83-5793
| Decision Date | 09 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-5793,83-5793 |
| Parties | BESTRAN CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant, v. EAGLE COMTRONICS, INC., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Joseph M. Malkin, Mark A. Samuels, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-counterclaimant-appellee.
Sherrill L. Johnson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-counterdefendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before HUG and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and CARROLL, District Judge. *
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.
* The Honorable Earl H. Carroll, United States District Judge, District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. State of Washington
...to Vacate. The Ninth Circuit has held that it does not have appellate jurisdiction in similar circumstances. Bestran Corp. v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 720 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir.1983). Finally, this Court has applied a de novo review of the Special Master's finding that the Skokomish Tribe holds......
-
Honeycutt By and Through Phillips v. City of Wichita
...(1966). Under the federal rules, a motion for reconsideration also qualifies as a motion to alter or amend. Bestran Corp. v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 720 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir.1983). Pursuant to K.S.A.1991 Supp. 60-2103(a), the running of the time for appeal is terminated by a timely motion to ......
-
In re Doty
...court\'s decision. See, In re Branding Iron Steak House, supra, 536 F.2d at 301 536 F.2d 299 (9th Cir.1976); Bestran Corp. v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 720 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir.1983); In re 6 & 40 Inv. Group, Inc., supra, 752 F.2d at 515-16 (752 F.2d 515) (10th The time to file a Motion to alte......
-
In re Tyrone F. Conner Corp., Inc.
...of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 52(b). Munden v. Ultra-Alaska Associates, 849 F.2d 383, 386 (9th Cir.1988); Bestran Corp. v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 720 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1983). 1) Such motions must be made within ten days after the entry of judgment. FRCP 52(b); FRCP 59(e); FRBP 9023; see a......