National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA et al v. Seagate Technology, Inc.

Filing 411

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL Show Cause Response due by 5/6/2013.. Signed by Judge Alsup on May 1, 2013.. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/2/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (jmdS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

No. C 04-01593 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING NOTICE OF
APPEAL

v.
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Defendant.

15

/

16
17

A January 25 order on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment granted final

18

summary judgment in favor of National Union and against Seagate (Dkt. No. 379). On February

19

25, Seagate appealed that order (Dkt. No. 381). The following day, Seagate moved under Rule

20

60(a) and (b) to vacate the January 25 judgment on the ground that final judgment was

21

improvidently entered because there were still unresolved issues lurking in the case (Dkt.

22

No. 386).

23

A March 27 order (1) granted Seagate’s Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the January 25 order

24

and denied the Rule 60(a) motion as moot, and (2) advised in the alternative that if jurisdiction to

25

rule on the Rule 60 motions were lacking, the Court would provide such relief following a

26

limited remand from the court of appeals (Dkt. No. 394). The same day, an amended order

27

issued on the parties’ earlier cross-motions for summary judgment that granted partial summary

28

judgment in favor of National Union and certified the issues therein for interlocutory review
under Section 1292(b) (Dkt. No. 396).

1

Following a case management conference wherein the parties identified several lurking

2

disputes and contingent potential disputes, an April 5 order directed the parties to file all motions

3

for further relief of any sort by April 25; any issues not teed up for resolution would be deemed

4

waived (Dkt. No. 398). On April 25, Seagate timely filed a motion for partial summary

5

judgment and National Union timely filed a motion styled as a “motion to reinstate” the January

6

25 final judgment (Dkt. Nos. 401–02).

7

On April 26, National Union appealed the March 27 order on Seagate’s Rule 60 motions

8

— the order that paved the way for this action to move forward on issues not presently before the

9

court of appeals. The parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be
stayed in submissions not to exceed five pages by MAY 6 AT NOON. It is a mystery to the Court

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

why Seagate and/or National Union has not yet sought a remand as described in the March 27

12

order (and why Seagate has not has not filed for interlocutory review of the March 27 amended

13

order). Because of the parties’ maneuvering, the record in this action has become so convoluted

14

that the risk of a waste of judicial resources would be too great. The Court is inclined to stay the

15

action and await further direction from the court of appeals.

16
17

The parties are also ORDERED to provide copies of this order to the court of appeals by
MAY 6 AT NOON.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: May 1, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2