UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1848
MONICA GANT,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHANDER KANT; ASHIMA K. KANT,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-03-
2803-RWT)
Submitted: March 14, 2007 Decided: April 25, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chander Kant, Ashima K. Kant, Appellants Pro Se. Christopher C. S.
Manning, MANNING & SOSSAMON, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises from a conflict concerning a
residential contract. Monica Gant alleged Chander and Ashima Kant
(“the Kants”) breached the contract. Gant sought specific
performance as well as damages resulting from the alleged breach.
The case, originally filed in state court, was removed to federal
district court, and the Kants counterclaimed. Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56, the Kants moved for summary judgment on Gant’s claims
and for partial summary judgment on their counterclaims. Following
a hearing, the district court denied the Kants’ Rule 56 motions.
The district court thereafter issued a settlement order,
stating it was advised by the parties that the action had “been
settled, including all counter-claims, cross-claims, third-party
claims and attorney’s fees, if any.” The settlement order
dismissed the action but provided “[t]he entry of this Order is
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the right of a party to move for good cause
within 30 days to reopen this action if settlement is not
consummated. If no party moves to reopen, the dismissal shall be
WITH PREJUDICE.”
The Kants filed a motion to reopen on the twenty-ninth
day following the settlement order. One day later, and before the
district court had an opportunity to rule on the motion to reopen,
the Kants filed a notice of appeal.
- 2 -
Citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459
U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam), the district court found the
Kants’ notice of appeal served to divest the court of jurisdiction
to rule on the Kants’ motion to reopen. The Kants then filed a
motion for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (2000),
which the district court denied.
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). We
dismiss the action without prejudice because the Kants moved to
reopen within the thirty-day period allotted for reopening in the
district court’s settlement order. Any consideration of the appeal
by this court prior to the district court’s ruling on the motion to
reopen would be premature. If the district court grants the motion
to reopen, the case will proceed in the district court in the
ordinary course. On the other hand, if the district court denies
the motion to reopen, any party aggrieved by that order may note an
appeal at that time. We deny as unnecessary the Kants’ motion to
remand filed in this court.
- 3 -
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 4 -