Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02962/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02962-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Limited
Defendant
RSUI Indemnity Company
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

RSUI Indemnity Company, a Delaware

Corp., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Associated Electric & Gas Insurance

Services Ltd., a Bermuda Corp., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2962-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Fed R.

Civ. P. 58(d) or Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment on Account of Contribution and

for Prejudgment Interest (Doc. # 94). The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Statement of

Material Facts in Support of its Motion (Doc. # 95), Defendant’s Response (Doc. # 101), and

Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. # 102). For the following reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s

Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 22, 2007 the Court sua sponte granted summary judgment for Plaintiff Royal

Speciality Underwriting, Inc. Indemnity Company (“RSUI”). (Doc. # 74). The Court

ordered declaratory relief and contribution pro rata from Defendant Associated Electric &

Gas Insurance Services Limited (“AEGIS”) toward the $20 million paid by RSUI in

settlement of the claims against RSUI’s and AEGIS’s common insured, Northern Pipeline

Case 2:05-cv-02962-JAT Document 107 Filed 05/19/08 Page 1 of 4
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 -

Construction Company. (Id.). The Clerk of Court entered a separate judgment granting

summary judgment to RSUI on May 23, 2007 (Doc. # 75). 

RSUI filed the pending motion on March 19, 2008. In it, RSUI requests that the Court

enter final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(d) or in the alternative

moves for summary judgment on the contribution amount owed to RSUI by AEGIS. AEGIS

filed its Notice of Appeal on March 21, 2008 (Doc. #99). 

II. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district

courts of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “Once a notice of appeal takes effect, the

district court loses jurisdiction over the matter placed before the appellate court.” United

Nat’l. Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001). But if a notice of

appeal is filed with respect to a non-appealable order, the district court is not divested of

jurisdiction. Ruby v. Sec’y. of the United States Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 388–89 (9th Cir. 1966).

Here, RSUI alleges that the May 23, 2007 Judgment by this Court was not an

appealable final judgment. RSUI argues that the Judgment did not grant all the relief to

which it was entitled as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c). (Doc. # 94 at 2).

RSUI contends that the claim for contribution in its First Amended Complaint (Doc. #21) has

not been satisfied. RSUI requests that the Court enter a final judgment for RSUI against

AEGIS in the amount of $11,272,727.27 and for pre- and post-judgment interest.

RSUI further argues that the necessary language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

54(b) was not included in the May 23, 2007 Judgment to direct entry of a final judgment of

fewer than all the claims. (Doc. # 94 at 2). RSUI requests that judgment for its claim for

contribution be “set out in a separate document” as required by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 58. (Doc. # 94 at 1). In the alternative, RSUI request summary judgment on the

amount of contribution to be paid, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest.

At the time it filed the First Amended Complaint, RSUI had not paid any money to

the underlying plaintiffs. Accordingly, the First Amended Complaint reads: 

Case 2:05-cv-02962-JAT Document 107 Filed 05/19/08 Page 2 of 4
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

The Court denied RSUI’s request for attorneys fees in the Order at Docket Number

93.

- 3 -

Although the underlying action is still pending in Arizona state

court . . . the parties have reached a confidential settlement

agreement. As part of the settlement agreement, RSUI will

tender the full amount of its policy limits. . . . RSUI is due

contribution from AEGIS to the extent of the amount RSUI will

pay in excess of its pro-rata share of the common liability. 

(First Am. Compl. ¶¶25-26, 28)(emphasis added). RSUI never asked for a sum certain.

Also, in the Prayer for Relief, RSUI requested only the following:

A. A judgment by this Court declaring that the RSUI Policy

and AEGIS Policy provide excess liability insurance to Northern

Pipeline at the same coverage level, and that the proper method

of allocating the insurers’ indemnity obligation is proration;

B. Relief in the form of contribution;

C. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred;1

 and

D. Such further relief as the Court deems proper.

(First Am. Compl. p. 5).

In the Summary Judgment Order, the Court stated: “Because the Court cannot give

effect to both ‘Other Insurance’ clauses without defeating coverage all together, the Court

finds them mutually repugnant. The Court therefore grants summary judgment to Plaintiff

RSUI. RSUI and AEGIS shall contribute to the settlement pro rata.” (Doc. #74, p.

6)(emphasis added). By ordering AEGIS to contribute to the underlying settlement on a prorata basis, the Court ordered all the relief that RSUI requested. 

The Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff, not partial summary judgment. The

Summary Judgment Order disposed of all the issues in the case and was a final and

appealable order. And the Clerk of the Court already has entered a separate judgment for

Plaintiff pursuant to 58(d) (Doc. #75). Furthermore, Rule 54(b) does not require the Court

to certify that its order or judgment is final. On the contrary, the rule requires the “no just

reason for delay” language only when the judgment disposes of less than all the claims or all

the parties. Because the Order granting summary judgment for RSUI resolved all claims in

Case 2:05-cv-02962-JAT Document 107 Filed 05/19/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

this litigation, including RSUI’s request for contribution in an unspecified amount, there was

no reason for the Order or the Judgment to have Rule 54(b) language.

Up until filing the pending motion, RSUI certainly has proceeded as if the Judgment

were final. RSUI moved for attorneys’ fees on June 4, 2007 (Doc. #77). In the memo in

support of attorneys’ fees, RSUI stated, “Fourth, RSUI has prevailed with respect to all of

the relief sought. The Court declared that the ‘Other Insurance’ clauses were mutually

repugnant, and that RSUI was entitled to pro rata contribution from AEGIS on the underlying

settlement. That is precisely the relief sought in the Amended Complaint.” (Doc. #87, p. 4).

RSUI also filed a Bill of Costs (Doc. #80) and an Amended Bill of Costs (Doc. #85), and the

Clerk has granted costs to RSUI. Finally, in its Response (Doc. #83) to AEGIS’s Motion to

Amend Judgment (Doc. #78), RSUI never argued that the Judgment was not final. 

If RSUI did not believe that the Judgment entered in its favor was final or that it was

entered in error, RSUI should have moved to amend the judgment pursuant to either Rule 59

or Rule 60 within the time periods allowed by those rules. RSUI chose not to do so. Because

the Court’s Order was final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. §1291 and AEGIS has filed a

timely appeal, the Court no longer has jurisdiction over this case. United Nat’l. Ins., 242

F.3d at 1109. The Court therefore denies the pending Motion for want of jurisdiction.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment or Alternative

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 94) is denied.

DATED this 19th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-02962-JAT Document 107 Filed 05/19/08 Page 4 of 4