Lester v. Presto Lifts Incorporated et al
Filing
29
ORDER granting 21 Defendant Vonberg Valve's Motion for Entry of Judgment. The Clerk is directed to enter a final judgment dismissing without prejudice all claims against Defendant Vonberg Valve, Inc., pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 8/20/12.(LSP)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Steven Lester,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
v.
Presto Lifts, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 12-398-PHX-PGR
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Vonberg Valve’s Motion for Entry of Judgment
Pursuant to Rule 54(b). (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Doc. 26.)
17
On February 24, 2012, Lester filed a complaint against Defendants Presto Lifts, Inc.,
18
and Vonberg Valve, Inc., setting forth claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of
19
warranty. Lester alleges that he was injured while performing repair work on a scissor lift
20
manufactured by Presto Lifts. He further alleges that the lift contained a defective
21
manufactured by Vonberg Valve. On June 19, 2012, the Court granted without prejudice
22
Vonberg Valve’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 20.)
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when multiple claims
or 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.” Rule 54(b) certification is proper if it will aid the expeditious resolution
of the case. Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993). In
1
considering whether certification under Rule 54(b) is appropriate, the court is to consider
2
whether the claims under review are separable legally and factually, and whether granting
3
the Rule 54(b) request might result in multiple appellate decisions or duplicate proceedings
4
on the same issues. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980).
5
Plaintiff contends that the claims against Vonberg Valve are not separable from those
6
against Presto Lifts. (Doc. 26 at 3.) This argument misses the mark, because the Court’s order
7
addressed only personal jurisdiction, an issue which is “easily severable from the merits of
8
the lawsuit.” Core-Vent Corp., 11 F.3d at 1484. Plaintiff also contends that entering
9
10
11
12
13
14
judgment will not expedite the litigation, given that he has filed a complaint against Vonberg
in the Northern District of Illinois. (Doc. 26 at 3–4.) It is not evident, however, nor does
Plaintiff explain, how an order allowing him to immediately appeal this Court’s ruling on
personal jurisdiction would result in multiple appellate decisions or duplicate proceedings
concerning the issue or otherwise impede the “efficient administration of justice.” Core-Vent
Corp., 11 F.3d at 1484; see, e.g., Animale Group, Inc. v. Sunny’s Perfume, Inc., No. 5:07-cv-
15
13, 2007 WL 2010476 at *1 (S.D.Tex. July 5, 2007) (noting that “[o]ne would be hard16
17
18
19
20
21
pressed to find a decision in which a court denied Rule 54(b) certification after dismissing
a party for lack of personal jurisdiction”).
In sum, the Court finds there is no just reason to delay entry of judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant Vonberg Valve’s Motion for Entry
22
of Judgment (Doc. 21). The Clerk is directed to enter a final judgment dismissing without
23
prejudice all claims against Defendant Vonberg Valve, Inc., pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
24
Procedure 54(b).
25
DATED this 20th day of August, 2012.
26
27
28
-2-
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?