Nautilus Insurance Company v. Access Medical, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 2, 2019
• Docket: 17-16840
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 2 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Nos. 17-16840 18-15136 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:15-cv-00321-JAD-GWF

ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC; ROBERT CLARK WOOD II, MEMORANDUM*

Defendants-Appellants,

and

FLOURNOY MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendant.

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Nos. 17-16842 18-15214 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:15-cv-00321-JAD-GWF

ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC; ROBERT CLARK WOOD II,

Defendants,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. and

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 10, 2019 San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, IKUTA, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Access Medical, LLC, Robert Wood, and Flournoy Management, LLC,1

appeal the district court’s two orders denying appellants’ two requests that the

district court issue an order indicating to this Court that the district court would

grant or entertain a motion for relief, brought under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in

favor of Nautilus Insurance Company. We dismiss these consolidated appeals.

The district court lacked adjudicatory authority to rule on the merits of

appellants’ Rule 60 motions for relief from the district court’s order granting

summary judgment while that order was pending on appeal before this court,

1 We reject Nautilus’s argument that Flournoy lacks standing to bring this appeal. As an insured under the policy, Flournoy was adversely affected by the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Nautilus. 2 absent a limited remand allowing it to do so. See Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d

661, 685 (9th Cir. 2007). We therefore decline to exercise appellate jurisdiction

over the district court’s orders denying appellants’ requests for indicative rulings.

See Defs. of Wildlife v. Bernal, 204 F.3d 920, 930 (9th Cir. 2000).2

DISMISSED.

2 Nautilus’s motions for judicial notice (17-16840 Dkt. No. 30; 17-16842 Dkt. No. 29) are DENIED. Access and Wood’s motions for judicial notice (17- 16840 Dkt. Nos. 38, 64; 17-16842 Dkt. Nos. 37, 63; 18-15136 Dkt. Nos. 10, 32; 18-15214 Dkt. No. 29) are DENIED. 3