Hernandez v. Brewer et al
Filing
110
ORDER denying 72 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b); granting 75 Motion for Leave to File; denying 83 Motion to Change Venue and request for sanctions; denying as moot the 89 Motion to Expedite; granting 90 Objection and Motion to Strike. The Clerk of the Court shall strike Doc. 89 from the Record. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 3/15/13. (LAD)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Cristobal Hernandez, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
No. CV 11-1945-PCT-JAT
ORDER
v.
Benjamin Parry,
Defendant.
13
14
Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment under
15
Rule 54(b) (Doc. 72); (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File (Doc. 75); (3) Plaintiff’s
16
Motion to Change Venue (Doc. 83); (4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Rule 54(b) (Doc.
17
89); and (5) Defendant’s Objection and Motion to Strike Doc. 89 (Doc. 90). The Court
18
now rules on the Motions.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) (Doc. 72)1
19
I.
20
On October 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court. On December 20,
21
2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint was eighty-three
22
pages and contained twenty-two Counts as alleged against sixteen Defendants.
23
Defendants then filed Motions to Dismiss. In its ruling on the Motions to Dismiss, the
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff requested leave to file additional pages to exhibits to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Defendant did not respond or otherwise object
to the request. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File (Doc. 75) is granted.
The additional pages attached to the Motion for Leave to File are deemed exhibits to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) as requested in Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File.
1
Court found that the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint fell into roughly three categories: (1)
2
alleged violations of criminal statutes, (2) section 1983 claims; and (3) state law claims.
3
As alleged by Plaintiff, each cause of action stemmed from a criminal investigation,
4
which led to the civil forfeiture of Plaintiff’s home. Although the Complaint focused on
5
several different factual scenarios, according to Plaintiff, each of cause of action arose
6
because of a civil conspiracy between Defendants against Plaintiff. The Court granted
7
the Motions to Dismiss and dismissed all Counts and all Defendants with the sole
8
exception of part of Count 7, wherein Plaintiff alleged a §1983 claim against Defendant
9
Parry based on an alleged Fourth Amendment violation during a traffic stop. (Doc. 42).
10
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), Plaintiff requests that the Court
11
deem its July 9, 2012 Order granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss to be a final
12
judgment.
13
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
14
When an action presents more than one claim for relief-whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party
claim--or when multiple parties are involved, the court may
direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer
than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly
determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise,
any order or other decision, however designated, that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action
as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any
time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the
claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
In determining whether granting a Rule 54(b) request is
appropriate,
24
25
26
27
28
[a] district court must first determine that it is dealing with a
“final judgment.” It must be a “judgment” in the sense that it
is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must be
“final” in the sense that it is “an ultimate disposition of an
-2-
individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims
action.”
1
2
Once having found finality, the district court must go on to
determine whether there is any just reason for delay. Not all
final judgments on individual claims should be immediately
appealable, even if they are in some sense separable from the
remaining unresolved claims. The function of the district
court under the Rule is to act as a “dispatcher.” It is left to
the sound judicial discretion of the district court to determine
the “appropriate time” when each final decision in a multiple
claims action is ready for appeal. This discretion is to be
exercised “in the interest of sound judicial administration.”
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Thus, in deciding whether there are no just reasons to delay
the appeal of individual final judgments . . . a district court
must take into account judicial administrative interests as well
as the equities involved. Consideration of the former is
necessary to assure that application of the Rule effectively
“preserves the historic federal policy against piecemeal
appeals.”
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1980) (internal citations
omitted).
While the July 9, 2012 Order granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss could
certainly constitute a final judgment on some of Plaintiff’s claims as contemplated by
Rule 54(b), the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show there is no just reason for
delaying an appeal of those claims. Plaintiff argues that a denial of the Rule 54(b)
certification, and the progression of the trial on the remaining claim, risks the expense of
a second trial if the Ninth Circuit reverses and remands on any of the dismissed claims.
The Court finds that such a risk does not outweigh the interest in the timely resolution of
the remaining claims and the avoidance of piecemeal appeals. A stay of the remaining
claim will delay resolution of that claim by years and, by the mere passage of time alone,
will increase the complexity and expense of litigating the remaining claim at the trial
court level. Further, granting certification will create two separate appeal tracks and will
-3-
1
increase the complexity and expense of this litigation at the appellate level.
2
Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that there is no just reason for delay and
3
Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) (Doc. 72) is denied. Further,
4
Plaintiff requested that the Court expedite ruling on his Motion for Entry of Judgment
5
under Rule 54(b). Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Rule 54(b) (Doc. 89) is denied as moot.
6
II.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Change Venue (Doc. 83)
7
Plaintiff requests a change of venue. Plaintiff argues that, because his claims were
8
brought against “Defendant Attorneys and Defendant Investigators of the Arizona
9
Attorney General’s Office, the Pinal County Attorney’s Office and the Pinal County
10
Sherriff’s Office,” “[j]ustice cannot be served in this present venue as the Attorneys
11
involved have established many working relationships with Judges and employees within
12
the County and Federal Courts system.” (Doc. 83 at 2-3).
13
of venue is appropriate because the undersigned has shown a personal bias or prejudice
14
against Plaintiff.
Plaintiff argues that a change
15
Because part of Plaintiff’s Motion to Change Venue is a motion for recusal of the
16
undersigned, the undersigned referred that part of the Motion to District Court Judge
17
Snow, who was chosen by the Clerk of the Court to decide the Motion by random draw,
18
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 (Doc. 107). Judge Snow then denied the request for recusal,
19
finding that Plaintiff’s reasons for recusal were without merit. (Doc. 109).
20
With regard to Plaintiff’s request to change venue, Defendant argues that Plaintiff
21
has failed to cite to any reason to change venue. Defendant further requests sanctions
22
against Plaintiff for having to respond to various motions filed by Plaintiff, including the
23
Motion for Change of Venue, which Defendant argues are frivolous.
24
25
26
27
28
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. section 1404(a),
(a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action
to any other district or division where it might have been
-4-
brought or to any district or division to which all parties have
consented.
1
2
28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a).
3
In ruling on a motion to transfer, the Court may consider the following factors to
4
determine whether transfer is appropriate: “(1) the location where the relevant
5
agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the
6
governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts with
7
the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum,
8
(6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of
9
compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the
10
ease of access to sources of proof.” Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498
11
(9th Cir. 2000).
12
Plaintiff has failed to address any of these factors in his motion. Rather, Plaintiff
13
argues that the interests of justice require transfer of venue because the undersigned and
14
every judge within this Court are inherently biased and prejudiced against Plaintiff.
15
Plaintiff argues that this contention is supported by the undersigned’s adverse rulings
16
against Plaintiff in this case. As reasoned by Judge Snow, Plaintiff has not shown any
17
meritorious reason for the recusal of the undersigned. As such, Plaintiff has failed to
18
demonstrate that transfer of venue is necessary for the interests of justice.
19
20
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Change Venue (Doc. 83) is denied.
Further, Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.
21
III.
22
On December 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Notice” with the Court. Defendant
23
argues that the Notice should be stricken from the Record because it violates this Court’s
24
October 31, 2012 Order (Doc. 71).
Defendant’s Objection and Motion to Strike Doc. 89 (Doc. 90).
25
Due to Plaintiff’s repeated filing of duplicative motions on the same subject
26
matter, in its October 31, 2012 Order, the Court ordered Plaintiff to limit any issue he
27
28
-5-
1
wished to bring to the Court’s attention to one motion. (Doc. 71). Plaintiff’s December
2
10, 2012 Notice appears to be an attempt to again request reconsideration of this Court’s
3
July 9, 2012 Order granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. The Court has previously
4
denied reconsideration of its July 9, 2012 Order. (Doc. 71). Plaintiff’s December 10,
5
2012 Notice merely recites facts relating to the previously dismissed claims and does not
6
provide any reason for the Court to reconsider its prior Order. As such, the Motion
7
constitutes another Motion for Reconsideration for the same reasons already brought to
8
the Court’s attention in Plaintiff’s other motions for reconsideration and violates the
9
Court’s October 31, 2012 Order. Accordingly, Defendant’s Objection and Motion to
10
Strike Doc. 89 (Doc. 90) is granted.
11
IV.
12
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File (Doc. 75) is granted.
13
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Judgment
14
15
16
Conclusion
under Rule 54(b) (Doc. 72) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Rule 54(b)
(Doc. 89) is denied as moot.
17
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Change Venue (Doc. 83)
18
is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s request for sanctions is
19
denied.
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Objection and Motion to Strike
21
Doc. 89 (Doc. 90) is granted. The Clerk of the Court shall strike Doc. 89 from the
22
Record.
23
Dated this 15th day of March, 2013
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?