that their notice of interlocutory appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction. A. STANDARD OF LAW A court may provide relief from a final judgment if the judgment is void. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4). “Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), a litigant may attack a judgment as void due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Wages v. IRS, 915 F.2d 1230, 1234 (9th Cir.1990); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 534, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2649, 162 L.Ed.2d 480, 494 (2005) (noting that Rule 60(b)(4) “preserves parties’ opportunity to obtain vacatur of a judgment that is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction”). Appellate courts have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity when the question involves a matter of law. See Forsyth, 472 U.S. at 528, 105 S.Ct. 2806 (<HOLDING>); see also Collins v. Jordan, 110 F.3d 1363,
holding that order denying motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition is final under 28 usc  1291 holding that a district courts denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision within the meaning of 28 usc  1291 to the extent that it turns on an issue of law holding that a decision on the merits is a final decision for purposes of filing an appeal pursuant to 28 usc  1291 whether or not there remains for adjudication a request for attorneys fees attributable to the case holding that a denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision holding that the rule 21 severance rendered the district court verdict a final and appealable judgment under 28 usc  1291