National Distribution Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 05 June 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 96-55362,96-55362 |
Citation | 117 F.3d 432 |
Parties | , 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5299, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8793 NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION AGENCY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a business entity, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Brian D. Boydston, Pick & Boydston, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff-appellant.
Robin A. Webb, Craig S. Momita, Daniels, Baratta & Fine, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; J. Spencer Letts, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-95-07911-JSL.
Before: BRUNETTI and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and HOGAN, ** District Judge.
OVERVIEW
National Distribution Agency ("NDA") filed this action against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company ("Nationwide") after Nationwide refused to defend a lawsuit brought against NDA. Nationwide filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted with the following order: (emphasis added). The district court entered no further orders in this case.
"Although the parties did not raise the question of our jurisdiction, we have raised it sua sponte, as we must." WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). Because the district court has not entered a final decision, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id. This court's jurisdiction is limited to final decisions of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A ruling is final for purposes of § 1291 if it (1) is a full adjudication of the issues, and (2) "clearly evidences the judge's intention that it be the court's final act in the matter." In re Slimick, 928 F.2d 304, 307 (9th Cir.1990) (citing United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U.S. 227, 234, 78 S.Ct. 674, 678-79, 2 L.Ed.2d 721 (1958)); see also FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269, 273-74, 111 S.Ct. 648, 651-52, 112 L.Ed.2d 743 (1991). Both sentences of the district court's order raise questions of finality.
In the first sentence of its ruling, the court ordered that Nationwide's motion to dismiss be granted. We have previously recognized that an order granting a motion to dismiss, standing alone, may not be appealable. See, e.g., Montes v. United States, 37 F.3d 1347, 1350 (9th Cir.1994); Slimick, 928 F.2d at 307 n. 2. In these cases, we have looked beyond the dismissal order and read the entire record to determine what effect the court intended its order to have. See Montes, 37 F.3d at 1350-51. In Montes, we read the dismissal order together with other rulings by the court and determined that the order granted the plaintiff leave to amend. Id. Accordingly, we found that the dismissal was not an appealable order. Id.; see also WMX, 104 F.3d at 1136. Similarly, in Slimick, we recognized that an order dismissing a complaint (rather than the "action"), "might leave outstanding claims and so does not necessarily dispose of the entire case." 928 F.2d at 307 n. 2. Upon review of the record in this case, including the court's various orders, we determine that the district court left no claims unresolved, nor did the court intend to grant National Distribution leave to amend. Accordingly, we conclude that the court intended its dismissal order to dispose of the entire action. It would be helpful if district courts made explicit their intentions with regard to final disposition of the claims before them. Explicit rulings will protect parties, and courts, from unwanted surprises by appellate courts that are forced to infer the court's intent from the record as a whole.
In the second sentence of its ruling, the court qualified its dismissal of National Distribution's complaint with the following language: "The Court may amend or amplify this order with a more specific statement of the grounds for its decision." We conclude that such a reservation fails to "put a definitive end to the case" and thus fails to "fix an unequivocal terminal date for appealability." Jung v. K. & D. Mining Co., 356 U.S. 335, 337, 78 S.Ct. 764, 766, 2 L.Ed.2d 806 (1958).
In determining whether the second sentence of the district court's ruling defeats the order's finality, we focus on the court's intent. By reserving, but not exercising, the option of amending its orders we cannot determine whether the court actually intended its orders to be final. Had the court entered a separate final judgment subsequent to the dismissal order, we would be confident the court intended no further action in the case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 58; Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 387-88, 98 S.Ct. 1117, 1121-22, 55 L.Ed.2d 357 (1978) (per curiam) ( ). We have found no such judgment, and we decline to read subjective intentions into the court's orders. The rulings on their face demonstrate that the court contemplated further action, and we will not venture to guess whether the court subjectively intended otherwise. See Fiataruolo v. United States, 8 F.3d 930, 937 (2d Cir.1993) ().
Although we conclude that in the first sentence of its ruling the court intended to dispose of the entire...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. California
...did not "clearly evidence[ ] the judge's intention that it be the court's final act in the matter," Nat'l Distrib. Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. , 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Slimick , 928 F.2d 304, 307 (9th Cir. 1990) ), and therefore was not final pursuant to 28 ......
-
Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events
...final act in the matter." Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1258 (9th Cir.2004) (quoting Nat'l Distrib. Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir.1997)). The critical question is whether the 2001 dismissal orders were "final" in this Although one might think oth......
-
Reed v. Lieurance
...matter." Elliott v. White Mountain Apache Tribal Court , 566 F.3d 842, 846 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Nat'l Distribution Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. , 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1997) ). The district court clearly intended to revisit the question of an award of attorney fees, if appro......
-
Van Dusen v. Swift Transp. Co.
...and (2) clearly evidences the judge's intention that it be the court's final act in the matter.” Nat'l Distrib. Agency v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. , 117 F.3d 432, 433 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, we are presented with an interlocutory appeal from a scheduling an......