Block v. Washington State Bar Association et al

Filing 260

ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE INDICATIVE RULING UNDER RULE 62.1 re Plaintiff's 249 Motion. The Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Anne Block's Motion to Issue Indicative Ruling on a Motion for Relief That is Barred by a Pending Appeal Pursuantto FRCP 62.1 (Dkt. # 249 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (PM) Modified on 3/30/2021: cc to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (PM).

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

ANNE BLOCK, an individual,

8
9
10

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. C15-2018 RSM
ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE
INDICATIVE RULING UNDER RULE 62.1

WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Anne Block’s Motion to Issue Indicative

14

Ruling on a Motion for Relief That is Barred by a Pending Appeal Pursuant to FRCP 62.1. Dkt.

15

#249. Plaintiff’s instant motion was filed after the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside

16

Final Decision in This Case (Dkt. #239) due to her pending appeal before the United States Court

17

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Dkt. #248 (order denying motion). Plaintiff’s instant

18

motion is largely duplicative of her failed motion to set aside the Court’s Order Reimposing

19

Vexatious Litigant Pre-Filing Order (Dkt. #232)—which is the subject of Plaintiff’s pending

20

appeal. See Dkts. ##233–236 (various notices of appeal filed by Plaintiff). After each of

21

Plaintiff’s motions she has filed motions seeking stays in her pending appeal. See Block v.

22

Washington State Bar Association, No. 20-35025, Dkts. #26, #30 (9th Cir.). The Ninth Circuit

23

has denied Plaintiff’s request to stay her appeal each time. Dkts. #29, #36. This Court likewise

24

exercises its discretion to not further delay Plaintiff’s appeal.
ORDER – 1

1

Once a party files its notice of appeal of the district court’s judgment, the district court

2

loses jurisdiction over the case and cannot consider a subsequently filed motion. See Williams

3

v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir. 2002); Katzir’s Floor & Home Design, Inc. v. M-

4

MLS.com, 394 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2004); See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1 advisory committee

5

notes (“After an appeal has been docketed and while it remains pending, the district court cannot

6

grant a Rule 60(b) motion without a remand.”).

7

However, the Federal Rules allow a district court to indicate to the court of appeals that

8

it would alter its ruling if the appeal were remanded for that purpose. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1.

9

This rule is explicitly cited by Plaintiff and is what she seeks. When a party brings a Rule 62.1

10

motion for an indicative ruling, the Court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny the

11

motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that

12

purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(1)-(3). A district

13

court’s decision to make an indicative ruling is discretionary. Rabang v. Kelly, No. C17-0088-

14

JCC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61769, 2018 WL 1737944, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 11, 2018).

15

The Court has considered the instant motion by Plaintiff and determined that an indicative

16

ruling is not warranted. The records make clear that Plaintiff’s motion is primarily aimed at

17

delaying or disrupting her pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit. To the extent Plaintiff’s

18

motion makes any valid argument, it is premised upon Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated suspicions.

19

Even then, Plaintiff does not make clear that her motion would have any appreciable impact on

20

her pending appeal if the Court were to address it at this time. The Court declines to exercise its

21

discretion to address Plaintiff’s motion while this case is up on appeal.

22

Accordingly, and having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the relevant briefing, and the

23

remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Anne Block’s Motion

24
ORDER – 2

1

to Issue Indicative Ruling on a Motion for Relief That is Barred by a Pending Appeal Pursuant

2

to FRCP 62.1 (Dkt. #249) is DENIED.

3

Dated this 30th day of March, 2021.

4
5

A

6

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER – 3