NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 7, 2015∗
Decided October 13, 2015
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 15-‐‑2123 Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Plaintiff-‐‑Appellee,
v. No. 12-‐‑C-‐‑271
Rudolph T. Randa, Judge.
IVAN RENE MOORE,
Defendant-‐‑Appellant.
Order
Our first decision in this case affirmed the district court’s judgment. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. v. Moore, No. 14-‐‑2644 (7th Cir. Apr. 17, 2015) (nonprecedential disposition).
We observed along the way that Wells Fargo Bank had not received full relief but that it
had not filed a cross appeal, and we concluded that this did not make the judgment
non-‐‑final.
∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After
examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
No. 15-‐‑2123 Page 2
After that order was released, the Bank asked the district court for the relief (foreclo-‐‑
sure and replevin) that had been omitted from its judgment. It relies on Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(1), which permits post-‐‑judgment relief when a “mistake” has been made. The
Bank characterized the incomplete judgment as a mistake. After our mandate issued,
the district judge acknowledged that he had made a mistake in drafting the judgment
and awarded the Bank the additional relief it had requested.
Moore’s second appeal does not contest the substance of this decision. Instead he
maintains that the district court lacked jurisdiction to act. Yet the court waited until our
mandate had been issued. The principle that only one court at a time has jurisdiction
means that, between the filing of the appeal and the issuance of the appellate mandate,
the district court cannot act without the court of appeals’ permission. Once the mandate
has issued, however, the district court’s authority resumes. Rule 60(b)(1) authorizes
post-‐‑judgment relief, and appellate permission is unnecessary. Standard Oil Co. v. United
States, 429 U.S. 17 (1976); LSJL Partnership v. Frito-‐‑Lay, Inc., 920 F.2d 476, 478 (7th Cir.
1990).
The Bank’s motion was filed within the year allowed for Rule 60(b)(1) motions, and
the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Bank acted within a
reasonable time after recognizing the mistake.
AFFIRMED