Free Order on Motion for New Trial - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 28.8 kB
Pages: 2
Date: June 27, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 330 Words, 2,050 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/35576/125.pdf

Download Order on Motion for New Trial - District Court of Arizona ( 28.8 kB)


Preview Order on Motion for New Trial - District Court of Arizona
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff also filed a Notice of Appeal this same day. Although in general a notice of appeal confers jurisdiction upon the court of appeals and divests the district court of jurisdiction, Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount, 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1992), Plaintiff's notice of appeal is not effective until after this Court disposes of the instant motion pursuant to Rule 4(a)(4)(B).
Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS Document 125 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 1 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wyvonna M. Barnett,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) Bashas, Inc., Mesa General Hospital) Medical Center, et al., ) ) Defendant. ) )

No. CV 03-2566-PHX-ROS ORDER

Pending is Plaintiff's Motion For New Trial filed on May 30, 2006 (Doc. #119).1 On March 31, 2006, the Court granted Defendant Mesa General Hospital Medical Center's ("Mesa General") Motion To Dismiss (Doc. #114), and the Clerk of Court entered a judgment in favor of Mesa General, which was the only remaining defendant, and dismissed the action with prejudice. Thus, there was never a trial. In addition, Plaintiff's Motion was filed pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that such motions must be filed "no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment." Because the Motion was untimely under Rule 59, the Court would ordinarily construe it as a Motion For

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60. However, Plaintiff already filed a Motion For Reconsideration of the Court's March 31, 2006 Order (Doc. #117), which this Court denied on May 19, 2006 (Doc. #118). Plaintiff raises no new arguments in this Motion For Reconsideration warranting relief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion For New Trial (Doc. #119) is denied. As a result, the Motion will be denied.

DATED this 27th day of June, 2006.

-2Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS Document 125 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 2 of 2