Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00703/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00703-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HINDS INVESTMENTS, L.P., CASE NO. CV F 07-0703 LJO GSA

et al.,

ORDER TO DENY ENTERTAINMENT OF

PLAINTIFFS’ F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) MOTION

vs. (Doc. 136.)

TEAM ENTERPRISES, INC., et al,

Defendants.

 /

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS AND

THIRD-PARTY ACTIONS.

___________________________________/

Plaintiffs Hinds Investments, L.P. and Patricia MacLaughlin (collectively “plaintiffs”) seek

F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) relief to file a proposed Third Amended Complaint (“ proposed TAC”) to add new

factual allegations as to dismissed defendant Hoyt Corporation (“Hoyt”) despite plaintiffs’ pending

appeal of Hoyt’s dismissal. 

This Court’s April 22, 2010 dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ hazardous substances clean up

contribution claims against Hoyt alleged in plaintiffs’ operative Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs

filed an April 23, 2010 notice of appeal of judgment in Hoyt’s favor, and the appeal remains pending

before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 7, 2010, plaintiffs filed their F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) motion for relief of the judgment to file 

1

Case 1:07-cv-00703-LJO -GSA Document 140 Filed 07/08/10 Page 1 of 3
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

the proposed TAC to allege new facts based on recent discovery of a potentially applicable Hoyt product

manual which suggests piping to an “open sewer” disposal of water from Hoyt’s product.

“The filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction over the

matters appealed.” Davis v. U.S., 667 F.2d 822, 824 (9 Cir. 1982) (vacating district court’s order on th

motion to amend complaint during pendencyof appeal). In the Ninth Circuit, the general rule is that “the

filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction to dispose of the motion after an

appeal has been taken, without remand from this court.” Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9 Cir. th

1984) (quoting Long v. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 646 F.2d 1310, 1318 (9 Cir. 1981)). “Because th

the filing of a notice of appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction over matters appealed,”

a district court lacks power to amend its dismissal of an action. Pro Sales, Inc. v. Texaco, U.S.A., 792

F.2d 1394, 1396, n. 1 (9 Cir. 1986). th

“To seek Rule 60(b) relief during the pendency of an appeal, ‘the proper procedure is to ask the

district court whether it wishes to entertain the motion, or to grant it, and then move this court [Ninth

Circuit], if appropriate, for remand of the case.’” Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9 Cir. th

2004) (citations omitted). An “appellant may make a motion to the court of appeals for a remand if the

district court indicates an intention to grant the Rule 60(b) motion.” A district court lacks jurisdiction

to address a post-appeal F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion “without remand” from the Ninth Circuit. Smith v.

Lujan, 588 F.2d 1304, 1307 (1979). “Because [petitioner] did not observe the procedure required to

revest the district court with jurisdiction to consider his Rule 60(b) motion, we conclude that the district

court’s . . . order denying the motion is void for lack of jurisdiction.” Williams, 384 F.3d at 586. 

Plaintiffs’ F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion is premature and beyond this Court’s jurisdiction. Plaintiffs

do not follow the Ninth Circuit’s procedure in that they essentially ask this Court to ignore the Ninth

Circuit’s jurisdiction of the Hoyt dismissal and to grant them leave to file the proposed TAC. Plaintiffs

have not asked whether this Court will entertain the motion, they presume it will. Plaintiffs make no

reference to the Ninth Circuit’s procedure despite their counsel’s apparent knowledge of it. 

The gist of plaintiffs’ F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion is leave to amend their operative pleading. At this

stage, this Court’s order to grant plaintiffs’ requested relief would be void for lack of jurisdiction. 

Putting aside the effect of the pending appeal, the grounds for amendment are suspect and questionable

2

Case 1:07-cv-00703-LJO -GSA Document 140 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 3
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

to further support denial of plaintiffs’ requested relief.

In the absence of this Court’s jurisdiction, this Court will neither entertain nor grant plaintiffs’

requested relief. Moreover, even upon limited remand from the Ninth Circuit, this Court is disinclined

to grant plaintiffs’ requested relief given futility of the proposed amendment. In other words, this Court

is unconvinced that the proposed TAC would survive as to Hoyt. 

Hoyt and the other parties need not respond to plaintiffs’ F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cv-00703-LJO -GSA Document 140 Filed 07/08/10 Page 3 of 3