Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Bestran Corporation, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee

Bestran Corp., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee, 720 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir. 1983)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1983-11-09
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • applying Rule 59(e) filing 15 deadline requirement to motion for reconsideration brought under local rules

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bestran Corporation, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellant v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellee. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
31 opinions
BESTRAN CORP. v. EAGLE COMTRONICS, INC.,720 F.2d 1019(9th Cir. 1983)
BESTRAN CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-COUNTERDEFENDANT-APPELLANT, v. EAGLE
COMTRONICS, INC., DEFENDANT-COUNTERCLAIMANT-APPELLEE.
No. 83-5793.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted November 8, 1983.
Decided November 9, 1983.
Joseph M. Malkin, Mark A. Samuels, O'Melveny Myers, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-counterclaimant-appellee.

Sherrill L. Johnson, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-counterdefendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before HUG and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and CARROLL, District Judge.fn*
[1] Bestran appeals from the district court's denial of its motion for injunction restraining Eagle from prosecuting an identical action in New York. After the denial of the motion for injunction, Bestran filed a timely motion for reconsideration "pursuant to Local Rule 3.16 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 59(e)." Thirty days after the denial of the injunction, but before the district court had ruled on the motion for reconsideration, Bestran filed its notice of appeal.

[2] A timely filed motion for reconsideration under a local rule is a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed.R. Civ.P. 59(e).See Gainey v. Brotherhood of Railway Steamship Clerks,303 F.2d 716, 718 (3d Cir. 1962). A notice of appeal is null if filed while a timely motion under Fed.R. Civ.P. 59(e) is pending before the district court.Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.,___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 400, 403, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1983); Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4).

[3] The appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction.Page 1020
  1. The Honorable Earl H. Carroll, United States District Judge, District of Arizona, sitting by designation. ↩