Cadle v. Jefferson et al, No. 3:2007cv00070 - Document 138 (W.D. Ky. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 11/28/2017. For the reasons set forth, Defendant William J. Jefferson's 134 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal is DENIED AS MOOT. cc: Counsel; pro se Defendants(RLK)

Download PDF
Cadle v. Jefferson et al Doc. 138 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE DANIEL C. CADLE, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of the Corporation and the Shareholders of iGate, Inc. v. PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-cv-00070-CRS WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, ANDREA G. JEFFERSON, THE ANJ GROUP, LLC, VERNON L. JACKSON, and JOHN DOES 1-100 DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter if before the Court on the motion of Defendant William J. Jefferson (“Jefferson”) for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. (DN 134.) For the following reasons, the Court will DENY Defendant’s motion as MOOT. On August 10, 2017, Defendant Jefferson filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the Order of Partial Summary Judgment entered by this Court on July 14, 2017. (DN 133; DN 134.) Jefferson subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal on September 14, 2017. (DN 135.) On October 26, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit filed an Opinion and Order dismissing Jefferson’s appeal. (DN 137.) The Court held that “The district court has not entered its final decision during the pendency of this appeal; therefore, we lack appellate jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal from the partial decision.” (Id.) This order renders Jefferson’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal moot. Dockets.Justia.com For the reasons set forth above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Defendant William J. Jefferson’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal (DN 134) is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. November 28, 2017 -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.