FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REID PRODUCTS, INC.,  No. 03-55552

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.

v.  CV-01-01680-

WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION, MMM

Defendant-Appellee. OPINION 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

February 11, 2005—Pasadena, California

Filed March 1, 2005

Before: John T. Noonan, David R. Thompson, and

Michael Daly Hawkins, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Noonan

2389
COUNSEL

Surjit P. Soni, Pasadena, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.

Lawrence Borys, Los Angeles, California, for the defendantappellee. 

OPINION

NOONAN, Circuit Judge: 

Reid Products, Inc. (Reid) appeals the district court’s denial

of its ex parte application for entry of judgment in Reid’s suit

2390 REID PRODUCTS v. WESTPORT INSURANCE
against Westport Insurance Company (Westport). Holding

that the district court was correct in ruling that its prior judgment had not been vacated, we affirm the order of the district

court denying a new entry of judgment. 

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On February 21, 2001, Reid brought suit against Westport

for breach of contract and bad faith in its treatment of Reid

as an insured. On June 18, 2001, the district court ordered the

parties to file cross-motions for summary judgment. On October 9, 2001, the district court denied Reid’s motion for summary judgment and granted Westport’s. On October 10, 2001,

the court entered judgment for Westport. 

On November 30, 2001, Reid moved for reconsideration

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). On March 6, 2002, the district

court issued a ruling entitled “Order Granting Plaintiff’s

Motion To Reconsider Under Rule 60(B)(1) And Reaffirming

Entry Of Judgment In Defendant’s Favor.” The court ruled

that Reid had shown mistake or excusable neglect in its counsel’s interpretation of the court’s order directing the filing of

cross-motions for summary judgment. The court would, therefore, reconsider a portion of its order granting summary judgment to Westport. Reviewing the evidence now offered by

Reid, the court concluded: “the court reaffirms its earlier decision to enter summary judgment in favor of Westport.” 

On June 24, 2002, Reid moved ex parte for entry of judgment in favor of Westport, “so that appeal may be taken from

this Court’s decision granting on March 5, 2002, “Plaintiff’s

Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Cross-Motions for

Summary Judgment.” On March 25, 2003, the district court

denied this motion, ruling that its judgment entered on October 10, 2001 had never been “vacated, altered or amended.”

Reid filed an appeal of the March 25, 2003 order as well

as of the judgment of October 10, 2001. Westport moved to

REID PRODUCTS v. WESTPORT INSURANCE 2391
dismiss the appeal. This court limited the appeal to review of

the order of March 25, 2003. 

ANALYSIS

[1] Fifty days after the court entered judgment on October

10, 2001, Reid moved for reconsideration. At this point, the

30-day period for filing a notice of appeal set by Fed. R. App.

Proc. 4(a) had already run. No time remained for Reid to

appeal the judgment. The late motion for reconsideration had

no tolling effect. Only if the motion had been made within 10

days of the judgment would it have had such effect. Fed. R.

App. Proc. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). 

[2] Reid’s present appeal, seeking the entry of a new judgment in favor of its adversary, appears to be an effort to create

a new time from which appeal of the judgment might be

taken. No reason exists to countenance this maneuver. The

court’s judgment was entered in 2001. The appeals period

expired in 2001. The present appeal is DISMISSED. 

2392 REID PRODUCTS v. WESTPORT INSURANCE