Austin v. Lyft, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-09345
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Austin v. Lyft, Judge Chesney denied Austin’s reconsideration motion because his notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction.
George Jarvis Austin’s motion was denied; Lyft, Inc. was the defendant in the action.
What happened
In Austin v. Lyft, Inc., George Jarvis Austin asked the court to reconsider its ruling, grant a new trial, and recuse the judge.
Austin filed that motion on September 9, 2022. He had filed a notice of appeal four days earlier, on September 5.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney denied the motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, explaining that filing a notice of appeal generally removes the appealed matters from the district court’s authority.
The detailed version
- Austin v. Lyft, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-09345
- Maxine Chesney
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
George Jarvis Austin sued Lyft, Inc. The opinion addresses Austin’s filing titled “Motion for Reconsideration, New Trial, || Recusal,” which he filed on September 9, 2022. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the earlier ruling that Austin sought to challenge.
Ruling
The court denied Austin’s motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court concluded it did not have authority to decide the motion. The court noted that Austin had filed a notice of appeal on September 5, 2022. Relying on the general rule that filing a notice of appeal usually removes the appealed matters from the district court’s jurisdiction, the court denied the motion.
Result
The order denied the motion. The opinion does not state any additional ruling on the request for a new trial or recusal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.