Facciola, et al v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, et al

Filing 476

ORDER denying as moot 475 Lead Plaintiffs' motion for entry of final judgment. Signed by Judge Frederick J Martone on 11/15/12.(TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Robert Facciola, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

vs.

12
Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-10-1025-PHX-FJM
ORDER

15
16
17

We have before us Lead Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of final judgment (doc. 475). On

18

June 9, 2011 we dismissed all of Lead Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Mayer Hoffman

19

McCann, P.C., CBIZ, Inc., and CBIZ MHM, LLC (collectively, “MHM”) (doc. 200). On

20

November 21, 2011, we denied Lead Plaintiffs’ leave to amend the complaint with respect

21

to MHM (doc. 289). Subsequently, we approved class settlements and entered Rule 54(b)

22

judgments in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants Quarles & Brady and Greenberg

23

Traurig (docs. 473, 474). These orders, notwithstanding their Rule 54(b) designation,

24

constitute “final judgments” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

25

Section 1291 provides for appellate review of “final decisions of the district courts.”

26

A final judgment is a decision by the district court that “ends the litigation on the merits and

27

leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324

28

U.S. 229, 233, 65 S. Ct. 631, 633 (1945).

1

The filing of the final judgments against Greenberg and Quarles finally disposed of

2

the entire case on its merits and left nothing pending before this court. Therefore, these

3

judgments constitute the “final judgment” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Once we

4

entered these final judgments, our earlier interlocutory orders, including the orders granting

5

MHM’s motion to dismiss and denying Plaintiffs’ motion to amend with respect to MHM,

6

merged into the final judgment and became reviewable on appeal. American Ironworks &

7

Erectors Inc. v. North Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2001). There is no

8

need to enter a separate final judgment with respect to our interlocutory orders, including

9

those dismissing other defendants. Id. at 898.

10

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING as moot Lead Plaintiffs’ motion for entry

11

of final judgment (doc. 475). In the event that Lead Plaintiffs intend to appeal our decisions

12

with respect to MHM, they may wish to seek leave to extend the time to file a notice of

13

appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A).

14

DATED this 15th day of November, 2012.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-