The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff's motion to stay the proceedings pending appeal.*fn1 There are few circumstances in which a district court may continue to exercise authority over a case after the filing of a notice of appeal, an "event of jurisdictional significance [that] confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over . . . the case." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58-59 (1982) (per curiam). The district court may proceed if the notice relates to a non-appealable order or judgment. Mondrow v. Fountain House, 867 F.2d 798, 800 (3d Cir. 1989); Venen v. Sweet, 758 F.2d 117, 120-22 (3d Cir. 1985). The notice of appeal filed by plaintiff in this case represents such a circumstance. Despite the notice, this court retains jurisdiction over these proceedings.
The notice of appeal relates to an order denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the memorandum and order of court dated June 9, 2006.*fn2 The appeal is premature. Interlocutory appeals are permitted only in limited situations, when continuation of proceedings would foreclose vindication of the rights asserted. This is not such a situation. Plaintiff may secure full relief on his claims following the entry of judgment in this case.*fn3 The order denying the motion for reconsideration is non-appealable, and the notice of appeal is ineffective to divest this court of jurisdiction. See Mondrow, 867 F.2d at 800; Venen, 758 F.2d at 120-22; see also Allan Ides, The Authority of a Federal District Court To Proceed after a Notice of Appeal Has Been Filed, 143 F.R.D. 307, 311-12 (1992).
This case will proceed according to the pretrial and trial schedule (Doc. 68) despite the notice of appeal.*fn4 The decision to go forward is not in any way in derogation of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The appellate court maintains exclusive authority to decide the merits of the appeal, and enjoys the discretion to stay further trial proceedings pending its decision. In short, the fact that this court views the notice of appeal as invalid does not impinge on the ability of the Court of Appeals to consider the issue de novo.*fn5 Absent contrary appellate directive, the parties should follow the current pretrial and trial schedule.
AND NOW, this 31st day of August, 2006, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings (Doc. 112) and notice of appeal (Doc. 111), and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby
1. The motion to stay proceedings (Doc. 112) is DENIED.
2. All previous scheduling orders entered in the above-captioned case remain in full force and effect.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States ...