Grytsyk v. Morales
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-03470
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Grytsyk v. Morales, Judge Furman ruled the defective appeal did not remove jurisdiction and set deadlines on counsel’s withdrawal motion.
The order directly affected plaintiff Petro Grytsyk and his attorney, Alan Levine, by addressing the effect of Grytsyk’s notice of appeal and setting procedures for Levine’s motion to withdraw. It also maintained the district court’s jurisdiction over the remaining claims involving the defendants.
What happened
Grytsyk v. Morales concerns a notice of appeal from a March 22, 2021 order that partly granted and partly denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. That earlier order dismissed claims against several defendants, but other claims remained to be litigated.
Grytsyk’s notice described the earlier ruling as granting summary judgment, although the defendants had not sought summary judgment and the court had instead dismissed claims for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that the notice was not an appeal from a final order and therefore did not affect the district court’s jurisdiction.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered attorney Alan Levine to file and serve a sealed supplemental affidavit explaining the claimed irreconcilable differences by April 26, 2021. The order set deadlines for opposition and reply papers and said Grytsyk should try to find new counsel while the withdrawal motion was considered.
The detailed version
- Grytsyk v. Morales · No. 1:19-cv-03470
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 22, 2021
Background
On March 22, 2021, the court entered an opinion and order that granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. That earlier order dismissed Petro Grytsyk’s claims against several named defendants, while other claims remained to be litigated.
On April 20, Grytsyk filed a notice of appeal and corrected it the next day. The notice purported to appeal the part of the March 22 order that supposedly granted “summary judgment” to several defendants. The court noted that the defendants had not moved for summary judgment and that the court had not granted summary judgment; it had dismissed Grytsyk’s claims against those defendants for failure to state a claim.
Also on April 21, Grytsyk’s counsel, Alan Levine, moved to withdraw, citing “irreconcilable differences” with his client.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that filing a notice of appeal generally transfers control over the appealed aspects of a case to the court of appeals. But that rule does not apply to a plainly unauthorized appeal that could only be dismissed by the appellate court.
The court concluded that the March 22 opinion and order was not an appealable final order because it did not conclusively resolve all pending claims. Because several claims remained to be litigated, the court held that Grytsyk’s “patently improper” notice of appeal did not affect the district court’s jurisdiction.
Orders and Deadlines
The court ordered Levine to file, ex parte and under seal, a supplemental affidavit explaining the claimed irreconcilable differences no later than April 26, 2021, and to serve the affidavit on Grytsyk. Any opposition by Grytsyk or the defendants was due May 5, 2021, and any reply was due May 12, 2021.
The court also said Grytsyk should endeavor to find new counsel while the withdrawal motion was under consideration, to minimize delays if the motion were granted. Levine was ordered to promptly serve the order on Grytsyk and file proof of service. The order did not decide the motion to withdraw.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.