Nautilus Insurance Company v. Access Medical, LLC; Robert Clark Wood Ii

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC; ROBERT
CLARK WOOD II,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
FLOURNOY MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Defendant.
Nos. 17-16840
18-15136
D.C. No.
2:15-cv-00321-JAD-GWF
MEMORANDUM*
NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ACCESS MEDICAL, LLC; ROBERT
CLARK WOOD II,
Defendants,
Nos. 17-16842
18-15214
D.C. No.
2:15-cv-00321-JAD-GWF
FILED
JUL 2 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

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,
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

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --