Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-07209
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Judge Cronan denied Rimini’s motion to vacate without prejudice because an appeal had removed the matter from district-court jurisdiction.
Thomas Rimini’s motion to vacate was denied without prejudice because the district court lacked jurisdiction over the matters affected by his appeal.
What happened
In Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Thomas Rimini, representing himself, asked the district court to cancel its earlier decisions and orders in the case.
Rimini had filed a notice of appeal from the court’s decision dismissing the case. The court explained that the appeal transferred authority over the appealed matters to the appeals court.
Judge Cronan denied Rimini’s motion without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, meaning the district court could not decide the request while the appeal affected those matters.
The detailed version
- Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:21-cv-07209
- John Cronan
- Feb. 22, 2023
Background
Thomas Rimini, who represented himself, filed a motion for vacatur. “Vacatur” means asking a court to cancel or set aside an earlier decision or order. Rimini asked the court to vacate its decisions and orders in this case and referred to reasons he had raised in a motion for recusal in a related proceeding.
The opinion states that Rimini had filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s opinion and order dismissing the case.
Court’s Reasoning
The court explained that filing a notice of appeal transferred jurisdiction over the appealed matters to the court of appeals and removed the district court’s control over those matters. Because Rimini sought to vacate decisions and orders over which the district court no longer had jurisdiction, the court could not decide the motion.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan denied Rimini’s motion without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The opinion does not state any ruling on whether the earlier decisions and orders should have been vacated.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.