Nautilus Insurance Company v. Access Medical, LLC

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 2 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS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