F.3d 1413, 1417 (6th Cir.1996), became a party to the contested matter. See In re Lloyd, Carr & Co., 617 F.2d at 883 n. 1 (explaining that “the government’s participation here was sufficiently active ... to invoke the 60-day limit”). As a result, the sixty-day period applied to the appeals of the contested matter. Because the contested matter and the adversary proceeding were consolidated “for all purposes,” the sixty-day limit governing the contested matter extends to the entire consolidated case. See In re Adams Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir.1987) (finding that where the United States was a party to one case, the sixty-day rule applied to the other case if the cases were consolidated); cf. Bay State HMO Mgmt., Inc. v. Tingley Sys., Inc., 181 F.3d 174, 182 (1st Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, because Yamaha filed its notice of
holding that under federal law the dismissal of a claim as timebarred is adjudication of merits for purposes of res judicata holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes holding that a bankruptcy courts sale order is a final order for res judicata purposes holding that consolidated cases should be treated as single action for purposes of determining res judicata holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes