Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00779/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00779-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

WINTERTHUR INTERNATIONAL

AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, NO. CIV. S-00-0779 WBS JFM

WINTERTHUR INTERNATIONAL

AMERICA UNDERWRITERS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

INSURANCE COMPANY, GENERAL RE: MOTION TO ENTERTAIN

CASUALTY COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, RULE 60(b)(5) MOTION BEFORE

REGENT INSURANCE COMPANY, ISSUANCE OF MANDATE

SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, 

UNIGARD INDEMNITY COMPANY, 

UNIGARD INSURANCE COMPANY, 

AND BLUE RIDGE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN GARAMENDI, in his

capacity as INSURANCE

COMMISSIONER for THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendant.

----oo0oo---- 

Plaintiffs intend to bring a motion under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) to seek relief from this court’s

January 29, 2004 order denying them attorneys’ fees. Because the

plaintiffs in three other cases consolidated with this one have

appealed from the same order in each of those cases, and because

the Ninth Circuit has not yet issued its mandate regarding those

appeals, plaintiffs now move the court to advise them whether the

court wishes to entertain their Rule 60(b)(5) motion now or after

Case 2:00-cv-00779-WBS -JFM Document 74 Filed 08/29/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate in the appeals brought by

the parties in the consolidated cases. 

This motion is unnecessary. Plaintiffs acknowledge

that there is no appeal pending in this case. Though there are

appeals pending in the other consolidated cases, the United

States Supreme Court has made it clear that consolidation does

not merge the consolidated suits into a single case or transfer

those who are parties in one suit into parties in another. 

Johnson v. Manhattan Ry., 289 U.S. 479, 496-97 (1933). 

Therefore, the appeals in the consolidated cases do not divest

the court of jurisdiction of this case, and plaintiffs do not

need to seek the court’s permission to file a Rule 60(b)(5)

motion. See, e.g., Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 790 F.2d

769, 772-73 (9th Cir. 1986)(noting that party seeking to bring

Rule 60(b) motion while appeal is pending in underlying case

should file this type of motion with district court). Moreover,

even if it were necessary for plaintiffs to seek the court’s

permission to bring their contemplated Rule 60(b)(5) motion, the

court would allow them to bring the motion. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to

entertain a Rule 60(b)(5) motion before issuance of mandate be,

and the same hereby is, GRANTED. 

DATED: August 26, 2005

Case 2:00-cv-00779-WBS -JFM Document 74 Filed 08/29/05 Page 2 of 2