T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T CI TY OF SP OK AN E, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. WOR L D WI DE VI DE O O F W A S H I N G T O N , I N C ., D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 35508 D. C . No . 2 : 0 5 - c v - 0 0 1 3 9 - R HW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R obe rtH . W ha l e y , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J ul y9, 2009 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: B E E Z E R , O ’ S C A N N L A IN an dK L E IN F E L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. In 20 05 , the C i ty of S po kane fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n st at e c ou rt , al l egi ng that W orl d W i de V i deo o f W as hi ng t on , Inc. , w as op er at i ng i t s s t ores i n v i ol at i on of a l oc a l z oni ng or di na nc e . A f t e rW or l d W i de V i de o c ount e r c l a i m e d tha tthe o r d in an c e v io la te d th e F ir s t a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts , th e c a s e w a s r e m o v e d to 

# FI LED MA Y18 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

f e de r a l di s tr i c tc ourt . T he pa rt i e s s ubs e que nt l ya gr e e d t o ac ourt - or de r e d c ons e nt d e c r e e . I n 2 0 0 7 , h o w e v e r , th e C itym o v e dto v a c a te th e d e c r e e u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le of C i vi l P roce du re 60 (b). T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed the C i ty’ s m ot i on and v ac at ed the de c r e e . W or l d W i de V i de o t i m e l yappe a l s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof the C ity’s R u le 6 0 (b ) m o ti o n as w ell as th e c o u rt’s d en ial o f W o rld W id e V id eo ’s m ot i on f orr e c ons i de r a t i on. W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o he a rthi s appe a l . T he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof the C i ty’ s Rul e 60(b) m ot i on w as an i nt er l ocut ory order . Se e B al lard v . B aldr i dge , 20 9 F . 3d 11 60 , 11 61 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). U nd er28 U . S . C . § 1 29 2(a) (1), thi s c ou rthas j ur i s di c t i on ove rappe a l s f r om i nt e r l oc ut oryor de r s of the di s tr i c tc ourt“ gr a nt i ng, cont i nu i ng , m od i fy i ng , re fusi ng or di ss ol vi ng i nj un ct i on s, . . . exce ptw here a di re ct r e vi e w m a ybe ha d i n the S upr e m e C ourt . ” A l though the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s gr a ntof th e C ity ’s R u le 6 0 ( b ) m o tio n d idh a v e th e e f f e c t o f d is s o lv in g a n in

ju n c tio n , se e T h o m p s o n v . E n o m o to , 81 5 F . 2d 13 23 , 13 26 (9th C i r. 19 87 ), the S up re m e C ou rt h as h el d th atan ap p eal u n d er § 1 2 9 2 (a)(1 ) m ay b e h eard o n l y i f a l i t i g an tcan al so show thatthe i nt er l ocut ory order“ m i gh thave a ‘ se ri ou s, perhaps i rr epar abl e, c o n s e q u e n c e ,’ a n d th a t th e o r d e rc a n b e ‘e f f e c tu a llyc h a lle n g e d ’ o n lyb yim m e d ia te appeal , ” Carson v. A m . B rand s, Inc. , 45 0 U . S . 79 , 84 (198 1). W orl d W i de V i deoW e e xpr e s s no opi ni on on w he the rW or l d W i de V i de o c oul d ha ve m a de 1 th e r e q u ir e d s h o w in g s . H e r e , h o w e v e r , W o r ldW id e V id e o d idn o t e v e n a tte m p t to ma k e th e m. 3 has m ade nei ther s ho w i ng here . A cc ordi ng l y, w e m ustdi sm i ss thi s app ea l for l ac k 1 of j ur i s di c t i on. Se e T

hom ps on , 8 1 5 F .2 da t 1 3 2 7 . S h o u ldth e r e b e f

u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s b e lo w , w e u r g e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt to reev al u at e w h eth er i th as su b j ect -m att er j u ri sd i ct i o n , g i v en th atth e o ri g i n al case h a s b e e n r e o p e n e d a n d th e C ity ’s c o m p la in t a s s e rts o n lys ta te - la w c la im s . See 28 U . S . C . § 1331; U

n i ted S tu den t A i d Fu n d s, In c. v. Esp i n o sa , 130 S . C t . 1367, 1376 (201 0) (“ R ul e 60(b) . . . prov i des an except i on t o fi nal i ty thatal l ow s aparty t o see k re l i ef fr om a f i nal j ud gm ent , and requestre op eni ng of hi s c as e, un der al i m i t ed se t of ci rc um st ance s. ” ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on s om i tt ed)) ; H olm es G roup , Inc. v. V

orna do A i r C i rc ulat i on Sys. , Inc. , 5 3 5 U. S . 8 2 6 , 8 3 1 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ( “ [ A] c ount e r c l a i m — w hi c h appe a r s a s pa rtof the de f e nda nt ’ s a ns w e r , nota s pa rtof the pl ai nt i ff’ s c om pl ai nt

— cann otse rve a s the basi s f or ‘ ar i si ng un der’ j uri sdi ct i on . ”) ; Ca te r p i l la rI n c . v . Wi l l i a ms , 48 2 U . S . 38 6, 39 2 (19 87 ) ( “ T he pres ence or abse nce o f f e d e r a l- q u e s tio n ju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db yth e ‘w e ll- p le a d e dc o m p la in t ru le ,’ w h ic h p r o v id e s th a t f

e d e r a l ju r is d ic tio n e x is ts o n lyw h e n af e d e r a l q u e s tio n is p r e s e n te d o n th e f

a c e o f th e p la in tif

f’s p r o p e r lyp le a d e dc o m p la in t.” ) ; Fra n ch ise T a x B d. v . C o n s tr . L a b o r e rs V a c a tio n T

r u s t fo rS. Ca l. , 463 U . S . 1, 10 n. 9 ( 1983)4

(“ T he w el l -pl ea ded com pl ai ntrul e app l i es t o the ori gi nal j uri sdi ct i on of the di stri ct court s a s w el l as t o thei r r em ov al j uri sdi ct i on . ”) . DI S MI S S E D.