Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 245 Filed 11/07/13 Pageiof2 Page ID #:4542

FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 07 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

INGENUITY 13 LLC, No. 13-55871
Plaintiff, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC
Central District of California,
and Los Angeles
BRETT L. GIBBS, RECEIVED
ORDER CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Movant - Appellant, 117/13
V.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN DOE, BY: M A | DEPUTY

Defendant - Appellee.

Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner.

On October 30, 2013, the district court granted appellant’s motion for an
indicative ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 12.1.
Accordingly, appellant’s request for a limited remand is granted. See Crateo v.
Intermark, 536 F.2d 862 (9th Cir. 1976). This appeal is remanded to the district
court for the limited purpose of enabling the district court to consider appellant’s

motion to vacate the May 6, 2013 order imposing sanctions on appellant.

SM/MOATT

Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 245 Filed 11/07/13 Page 2of2 Page ID #:4543

Within 60 days after the filing date of this order or within 7 days of the
district court’s ruling on appellant’s motion to vacate, whichever occurs first,
appellant shall file: (1) a report on the status of the district court proceedings and a
motion for appropriate relief or (2) the opening brief. The filing of the opening
brief or the failure to file a report will terminate the limited remand.

If the opening brief is filed, the answering and optional reply briefs shall be
filed in accordance with the time limits set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 31(a).

Appellant’s request for dismissal is denied without prejudice to renewal after
resolution of this limited remand.

The Clerk shall serve this order on the district court judge.

SM/MOATT 2 13-55871