Goldberg v. Stein Saks, PLLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-03089
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Goldberg v. Stein Saks, PLLC, Judge Vyskocil declined to consider Goldberg’s request to reopen the case because his appeal was pending.
Mark Goldberg and Stein Saks, PLLC. The district court did not consider Goldberg’s request to reopen the case or set aside the dismissal to the extent those issues were involved in his pending appeal.
What happened
In Goldberg v. Stein Saks, PLLC, the court had previously dismissed Goldberg’s case with prejudice and entered judgment for Stein Saks, PLLC. Goldberg then filed a notice of appeal.
Goldberg later asked the court to reopen the case and set aside the dismissal. His letter also raised complaints about the defendant’s lawyer, but the court said those complaints were unrelated to the legal substance of the case.
Judge Vyskocil said the pending appeal prevented the district court from considering issues involved in that appeal. The court therefore declined to consider Goldberg’s request concerning the dismissal.
The detailed version
- Goldberg v. Stein Saks, PLLC · No. 1:23-cv-03089
- Vyskocil
- June 18, 2024
Background
On February 26, 2024, the court issued an opinion and order granting Stein Saks, PLLC’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. The Clerk then entered judgment for the defendant and terminated the case. Goldberg filed a notice of appeal on March 7, 2024.
Goldberg’s Request
On May 24, 2024, Goldberg asked the court to reconsider reopening the case and to vacate, or set aside, the order dismissing it. His letter included grievances against the defendant’s counsel. The court said those grievances were unrelated to the legal substance of the case and did not consider them. The court stated that Goldberg could raise any valid claim against the defendant’s counsel in a separate lawsuit.
Court’s Ruling
The court explained that filing a notice of appeal gives the appeals court authority over the parts of the case involved in the appeal and removes the district court’s control over those issues. Because Goldberg’s letter addressed the substance of the order granting the motion to dismiss, the court said it lacked jurisdiction to consider those issues. The court therefore stated that it would not pass on issues involved in the pending appeal.
Disposition
The order does not separately use the word “denied” for Goldberg’s request. It declines to consider the request insofar as it concerns the dismissal order because of the pending appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.