Group VII: Judgment · Last amended 2017 · Last verified July 14, 2026
This rule is substantially similar to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, which was introduced in 2009, but it contains two local differences—1) it references the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and its applicable rule; and 2) the language “or that the motion raises a substantial issue” has been omitted as inconsistent with local appellate rules.
Once a case is on appeal, the trial court loses authority over much of it — but a party can still have good reason to ask for relief there, such as a motion attacking the judgment itself. Rule 62.1 addresses that gap. If a timely motion asks for relief the trial court lacks authority to grant because of a pending, docketed appeal, the court has three options: defer considering the motion, deny it outright, or state that it would grant the motion if the Court of Appeals sends the case back for that purpose. That third option is the rule's centerpiece — an indicative ruling that lets the trial court signal its view without needing to reclaim full jurisdiction first.
If the trial court takes that third path, the burden shifts to the movant. Rule 62.1(b) requires the movant to promptly notify the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, under that court's own Rule 4(f), that the trial court has indicated it would grant the motion. From there, Rule 62.1(c) lets the trial court decide the motion only if the Court of Appeals remands the case for that purpose — the indicative ruling itself decides nothing.
The District's version departs from the federal rule in two respects. It points to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and that court's own procedural rule rather than to a federal appellate rule, and it drops the federal rule's alternative ground that the trial court could indicate the motion “raises a substantial issue” — the 2017 comment explains that phrase did not fit local appellate practice.
You can file it, but if the appeal has been docketed and the trial court lacks authority to grant the relief because of that appeal, Rule 62.1 governs how the court may respond — it cannot grant the motion outright while the appeal remains pending.
Rule 62.1(a) gives the court three choices: defer considering the motion, deny it, or state that it would grant the motion if the Court of Appeals remands the case for that purpose.
Rule 62.1(b) requires you, as the movant, to promptly notify the District of Columbia Court of Appeals under that court's Rule 4(f) that the trial court has made this indication.
No. Rule 62.1(c) makes clear the trial court may only decide the motion if the Court of Appeals remands the case for that purpose — an indicative ruling is a signal, not a decision.
The 2017 comment notes the District's rule references the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and its own Rule 4(f) instead of federal appellate rules, and omits the federal rule's alternative language about a motion "raising a substantial issue" because that language did not match local appellate practice.