KNOPF v. ESPOSITO LLP (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellants Michael Knopf and Norma Knopf (the “Knopfs”) appeal from a post-judgment order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cote, J.) denying their motion for an indicative ruling under Rule 62.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Knopfs sought reconsideration of the District Court’s judgment dismissing their claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that defendants conspired to violate the Knopfs’ constitutional rights. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to dismiss.

Rule 62.1 permits a district court that has been divested of jurisdiction by a pending appeal to issue an “indicative ruling” informing the parties and our Court how it would rule on the merits of certain motions, including motions for reconsideration made pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a); see also Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 28 n.7 (2d Cir. 2017). Because, in an order published concurrently with this writing, we vacate the District Court’s judgment of which the Knopfs sought reconsideration, and we remand for further proceedings, this appeal is now moot. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996) (per curiam) (holding that an appeal becomes moot “when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal as MOOT.