Maxwell v. Kaylor
- Lucy Koh
- 5:19-cv-07832
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Maxwell v. Kaylor, Judge Koh denied Maxwell’s motions because one was late and the other was barred by the pending appeal.
Michael T. Maxwell’s post-judgment motions were denied; the earlier judgment in favor of Roy Kaylor remained in place.
What happened
In Maxwell v. Kaylor, the court had already dismissed Michael T. Maxwell’s claims with prejudice and entered judgment for Roy Kaylor. Maxwell then filed a motion seeking corrective orders and a motion asking the court to alter or amend the judgment.
The court denied the motion to alter or amend because Maxwell filed it seven days past the 28-day deadline under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also denied the motion for corrective orders because Maxwell had filed an appeal, which generally transferred control over the appealed issues to the court of appeals.
Judge Lucy H. Koh ruled that the motion to alter or amend was untimely and that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested corrective orders. The court denied both motions.
The detailed version
- Maxwell v. Kaylor · No. 5:19-cv-07832
- Lucy Koh
- Aug. 13, 2021
Background
The court had dismissed Michael T. Maxwell’s claims with prejudice on March 22, 2021, and entered judgment in favor of Roy Kaylor. Maxwell later filed two motions: a motion for corrective orders and a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Maxwell also filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment
Maxwell filed the motion to alter or amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). That rule requires such a motion to be filed within 28 days after judgment. Because judgment was entered on March 22, 2021, the deadline was April 19, 2021. Maxwell filed the motion on April 26, 2021.
The court held that the motion was untimely and denied it. The court also explained that Rule 6(b)(2) does not allow a court to extend the deadline for a Rule 59(e) motion.
Motion for Corrective Orders
Maxwell asked the court to issue orders requiring Kaylor to comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court denied this motion because Maxwell’s claims had already been dismissed with prejudice, judgment had been entered, and Maxwell had filed a notice of appeal.
The court explained that a notice of appeal generally gives jurisdiction over the appealed matters to the court of appeals and removes the district court’s control over those matters. It therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to grant Maxwell’s requested relief.
Disposition
The court denied Maxwell’s motion for corrective orders and denied his motion to alter or amend the judgment as untimely. This order addressed the two post-judgment motions; it did not revisit the merits of the earlier dismissal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.