Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01728/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01728-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Interpleader Action

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Protective Life Insurance Co. and AXA 

Equitable Life Insurance Co., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Peter J. Mizioch; Estate of Phyllis A. 

Mizioch; Jimmy Ray Montoya; Mark Casey 

Montoya; and Russel Lynn Montoya, 

Defendants.

No. CV10-1728-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 The Montoyas filed a Motion for Indicative Ruling Pursuant to Rule 62.1 on May 

17, 2012. (Doc. 273.) The Montoyas are seeking a limited remand from the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals for this Court to decide the Motion for Relief from Judgment 

(Doc. 255) filed on November 8, 2011. The Montoyas want this Court to either indicate 

that it would grant the Motion for Relief, if it had jurisdiction, or find that the Motion 

raises a substantial issue. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 provides: 

If a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks 

authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed 

and is pending, the court may: 

(1) defer considering the motion; 

(2) deny the motion; or 

(3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of 

appeals remands for that purpose or that he motion raises a 

Case 2:10-cv-01728-JAT Document 274 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

substantial issue. 

F.R.Civ.P. 62.1(a). 

 The Court already has exercised the option set out in subparagraph one of Rule 

62.1(a). The Court denied the Motion for Relief from Judgment for lack of jurisdiction 

on March 14, 2012 (Doc. 267). Rule 62.1(a)’s courses of action are set out in the 

disjunctive. Because the Court already elected to deny the Motion for Relief for lack of 

jurisdiction, it will not now state whether it would grant the Motion or whether the 

Motion raises a substantial issue. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED Denying the Montoyas’ Motion for Indicative Ruling Pursuant 

to Rule 62.1 (Doc. 273). 

 Dated this 21st day of May, 2012. 

Case 2:10-cv-01728-JAT Document 274 Filed 05/21/12 Page 2 of 2