Opinion
No. 17-16840 No. 18-15136 No. 17-16842 No. 18-15214
07-02-2019
NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC; ROBERT CLARK WOOD II, Defendants-Appellants, and FLOURNOY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant. NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC; ROBERT CLARK WOOD II, Defendants, and FLOURNOY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00321-JAD-GWF MEMORANDUM 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Access Medical, LLC, Robert Wood, and Flournoy Management, LLC, 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.
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.
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, 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).
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. --------