Summary
filing of notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction to entertain a later-filed motion to intervene
Summary of this case from Milliner v. Mut. Sec., Inc.Opinion
No. 11-56868 D.C. No. 2:04-cv-09049-DOC-RNB No. 11-56881
12-19-2012
CARTER BRYANT, an individual, Plaintiff, and MATTEL, INC., a Delaware corporation; MATTEL DE MEXICO S.A. DE C.V., Plaintiffs - Appellees, and MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a California corporation; MGA ENTERTAINMENT (HK) LIMITED, a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region business entity; MGAE DE MEXICO, S.R.L. DE C.V., a Mexico business entity; ISAAC LARIAN, Defendants - Appellees, v. CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenor - Appellant, CARLOS GUSTAVO MACHADO GOMEZ; OMNI 808 INVESTORS, LLC; IGWT 826 INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendants, and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA; LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenors. CARTER BRYANT, an individual, Plaintiff, MATTEL, INC., a Delaware corporation; MATTEL DE MEXICO S.A. DE C.V., Plaintiffs - Appellees, and MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a California corporation; MGA ENTERTAINMENT (HK) LIMITED, a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region business entity; MGAE DE MEXICO, S.R.L. DE C.V., a Mexico business entity; ISAAC LARIAN, Defendants - Appellees, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA; LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenors - Appellants, CARLOS GUSTAVO MACHADO GOMEZ; OMNI 808 INVESTORS, LLC; IGWT 826 INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendants, CRUM & FORSTER SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervenor.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition isn't appropriate for publication and isn't precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 10, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, TROTT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
"The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam). The district court's judgment determined the entire action and included an award of attorneys' fees. Mattel's subsequent notice of appeal divested the district court of its jurisdiction; the district court thus lacked jurisdiction to entertain appellants' motion to intervene. See Nicol v. Gulf Fleet Supply Vessels, Inc., 743 F.2d 298, 299 (5th Cir. 1984). We therefore affirm the denial of intervention, but do so on the ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain any such motion.
AFFIRMED.