Ballard v. Baldridge

9 Citing cases

  1. AAA Nevada Insurance v. Buenaventura

    644 F. App'x 775 (9th Cir. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Orders under Rule 60(b) vacating judgments are ordinarily considered interlocutory and not appealable. Ballard v. Baldridge, 209 F.3d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 2000); Resnik v. La Paz Guest Ranch, 289 F.2d 814, 817 (9th Cir. 1961). Such orders are akin to orders granting a new trial, which are also not final.

  2. Spokane v. World Wide Video of Washington

    379 F. App'x 650 (9th Cir. 2010)

    The district court's grant of the City's Rule 60(b) motion was an interlocutory order. See Ballard v. Baldridge, 209 F.3d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 2000). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), this court has jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders of the district court "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, . . . except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court."

  3. Cashman v. City of Cotati

    374 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 6 times

    Although the City attempts to characterize the district court's order vacating the judgment as a denial of summary judgment, an order granting a motion under Rule 60(b) is distinct from the denial of summary judgment. Ballard v. Baldridge, 209 F.3d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 2000). Indeed, "[w]hen an order granting a Rule 60(b) motion merely vacates the judgment and leaves the case pending for further determination[,] the order is akin to an order granting a new trial."

  4. U.S. v. Ries

    47 F. App'x 822 (9th Cir. 2002)

    We dismiss the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, because the order was neither a final order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 nor an interlocutory order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. SeeBallard v. Baldridge, 209 F.3d 1160, 1160 (9th Cir.2000); WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

  5. Cooper v. Chilson (In re Chilson)

    CIVIL CASE NO. 1:14-CV-45 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    In the present matter, during the February 4, 2014, hearing, the Bankruptcy Court simply agreed to reconsider its December 27, 2013, Order. The Bankruptcy Court, on the record, expressly contemplated further deliberations with respect to the treatment of the Debtor's retirement funds. It took no further action, however, with regard to its December 27, 2013, Order presumably because it was awaiting the Trustee's memorandum responsive to the Debtor's authority. A final order is a decision by a court that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. Ballard v. Baldridge, 209 F.3d 1160, 1160-61 (9th Cir. 2000) citing Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945) and Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978). It is for this reason that Rule 60 orders vacating or reconsidering judgments, without more, are interlocutory and not final orders.

  6. AAA Nev. Ins. Co. v. Vinh Chau

    2:08-cv-00827-RCJ-CWH (D. Nev. Jun. 9, 2014)

    The Court acknowledges that "where the deficiency in a notice of appeal, by reason of . . . reference to a non-appealable order, is clear to the district court, it may disregard the purported notice of appeal and proceed with the case, knowing that it has not been deprived of jurisdiction," Ruby v. Sec'y of U. S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966). However, at this stage, it is neither clear to this Court nor, apparently, the Ninth Circuit, that the order appealed is not appealable. Indeed, the relevant rule is that "[o]rders vacating judgments without more under Rule 60(b) are interlocutory orders which are not appealable," Ballard v. Baldridge, 209 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added), and the Ninth Circuit has specifically ordered the parties to brief this issue in their substantive briefs, (USCA Order, ECF No. 160, at 1). Thus, this Court declines to find, at this stage, that the order is clearly not appealable such that the notice of appeal should be disregarded.

  7. In re Oakhurst Lodge, Inc.

    Case No. 11-17165-A-11 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2018)

    In any event, any argument that the conversion or dismissal dissolved the confirmation order would be misplaced: the court vacated both the conversion and dismissal orders on First-Citizens Bank's Rule 60(b) motion. Once these orders were vacated, the case was returned to the status quo, with Oakhurst Lodge operating under the terms of the confirmed chapter 11 plan, see Ballard v. Baldridge, 209 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000), and reorganizing under the supervision of the bankruptcy court, see Hillis Motors, Inc., 997 F.2d at 589. 2.

  8. In re Oakhurst Lodge, Inc.

    582 B.R. 784 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2018)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    In any event, any argument that the conversion or dismissal dissolved the confirmation order would be misplaced: the court vacated both the conversion and dismissal orders on First–Citizens Bank's Rule 60(b) motion. Once these orders were vacated, the case was returned to the status quo, with Oakhurst Lodge operating under the terms of the confirmed chapter 11 plan, see Ballard v. Baldridge, 209 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000), and reorganizing under the supervision of the bankruptcy court, see Hillis Motors, Inc., 997 F.2d at 589. 2.

  9. Farmers Union Mutual Ins. Co. v. Bodell

    346 Mont. 414 (Mont. 2008)   Cited 15 times

    A judgment, order or proceeding must be final to be addressed by a motion under Rule 60(b).); Ballard v. Baldridge, 209 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000) ("A final order is a decision by the District Court that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." (internal quotation marks omitted)); and Zimzores v. Veterans Admin., 778 F.2d 264 (5th Cir. 1985) ("By its own terms, Rule 60(b) is limited to relief from a `final' judgment or order. `Interlocutory orders and judgments are not within the provisions of 60(b), but are left within the plenary power of the court that rendered them to afford such relief from them as justice requires.'").