United States v. Walter James Kubon
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:18-cv-04788
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In United States v. Kubon, Judge Hamilton declined to consider defendants’ filings because the appeal removed jurisdiction over the appealed aspects.
The defendants’ filings were not considered, and future filings in the district court will not be considered unless the Ninth Circuit remands the case.
What happened
United States v. Walter James Kubon, et al., was already on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit when the defendants submitted three filings.
The filings were titled “Mandatory Judicially Noticed Prima Facie Evidence” and “Notice of Stay of Proceedings.” The district court explained that filing a notice of appeal transfers authority over the appealed parts of a case to the appeals court.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that the court would not consider future filings unless the Ninth Circuit sent the case back. The order did not decide the underlying issues in the case.
The detailed version
- United States v. Walter James Kubon · No. 4:18-cv-04788
- Phyllis Hamilton
- Dec. 17, 2019
Background
The court received defendants’ filings titled “Mandatory Judicially Noticed Prima Facie Evidence,” Dkt. Nos. 94 and 96, and a “Notice of Stay of Proceedings,” Dkt. No. 95. The opinion states that the action was already on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, identified as United States v. Kubon et al., No. 19-16059.
Jurisdiction during the appeal
The court explained that filing a notice of appeal gives the appeals court authority over the aspects of the case involved in the appeal and removes the district court’s authority over those aspects. The opinion relied on the United States Supreme Court’s statement that a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance.
Disposition
The court ordered that it would not consider any future filings unless the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court. The order addressed the district court’s authority to act while the appeal was pending and did not decide the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.