Favor v. W.L. Gore Associates, Inc. et al
Filing
61
ORDER that the Court DENIES Plaintiff's requested extension for want of good cause. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 10/7/13. (sem1)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL J. FAVOR [sic],
Case No. 2:13-cv-655
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King
Plaintiff,
v.
W.L. GORE ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Favors’ opposition to
various pending motions filed by Defendants. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff’s opposition does not
address Defendants’ motions on their merits. Instead, Plaintiff takes the position that his notice
of appeal filed on September 23, 2013 divests this Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate Defendants’
motion and that proceedings in this Court are “held in abeyance” pending the disposition of his
appeal in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Id.)
With this Order, the Court wishes to make clear its position that Plaintiff’s notice of
appeal did not divest this Court of jurisdiction. Under Sixth Circuit precedent, the district court
is allowed to proceed “where the order from which appeal is sought is itself clearly
nonappealable.” Cochran v. Birkel, 651 F.2d 1219, 1222-23 (6th Cir. 1981). In this case,
Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal from this Court’s decision denying remand to the state court.
This is a nonappealable order. See In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201, 211 (3d Cir. 2006); see also
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 74 (1996) (“An order denying a motion to remand,
‘standing alone,’ is ‘obviously . . . not final and [immediately] appealable’ as of right.”) (quoting
Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574, 578 (1954)). Accordingly, the Court retains
1
jurisdiction in this case, including jurisdiction to decide the motions currently pending before the
Court. See e.g. In re Taylor, 831 F.2d 297 (table), 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 14033 (6th Cir. Oct.
22, 1987); United States v. Bissacco, No. 3:06-cr-174, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 862443 (S.D.
Ohio June 19, 2013).
Plaintiff’s response also requests a one-week extension of time for responding to
Defendants’ pending motions in the event this Court disagrees (as the Court does) with
Plaintiff’s position that his notice of appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction. The Court
DENIES Plaintiff’s requested extension for want of good cause. Plaintiff’s responses to
Defendants’ motions remain due on the date previously set by this Court. (ECF No. 56.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
