The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-35603•Denge Lemo Gahano v. United Steel Workers International Union Local 8- 0369 (usw), Fka Pace
09-35603Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 27, 2010
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENGE LEMO GAHANO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STEEL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 8-
0369 (USW), FKA PACE; SUNDIAL
MARINE & PAPER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35603
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-01946-AJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Denge Lemo Gahano appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
09-35603 2
Procedure. We review de novo questions of jurisdiction concerning Rule 60(b)
motions, Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2007), and we dismiss.
Approximately a year after the district court entered judgment and Gahano
filed a timely notice of appeal, he filed a motion in the district court for relief from
judgment. Because the notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction to
consider his motion, the district court properly refused to consider it and denied it.
See id. at 685 (“Once an appeal is filed, the district court no longer has jurisdiction
to consider motions to vacate judgment”). Moreover, where, as here, “the
underlying judgment has been appealed, denial of a motion for relief from that
judgment is a nonappealable order.” Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790
F.2d 769, 772 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we dismiss Gahano’s appeal of the
denial of his Rule 60(b) motion and also deny as moot his motion filed on April 30,
2010.
DISMISSED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.