Terry et al v. Newell et al

Filing 79

ORDER that Plaintiffs' 74 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment under Rule 54(b) is granted. Final judgment is entered in favor of the Federal Defendants for reasons stated in the Courts previous 68 Order. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 1/13/2014.(LFIG)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kent Terry, et al., No. CV-12-02659-PHX-DGC Plaintiffs, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER William Newell, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 Plaintiffs have filed a motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of 15 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 74. The motion is fully briefed and no party 16 has requested oral argument. The Court will grant the motion.1 17 I. Background Facts. 18 Plaintiffs are the parents of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was killed while 19 on duty in the Arizona desert on December 15, 2010. Defendant Emory Hurley is an 20 Assistant United States Attorney. Defendants William Newell, George Gillett, David 21 Voth, Hope McAllister, Tonya English, and William McMahon are agents and officers 22 with the United States Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF 23 Defendants”). Defendant Lone Wolf Trading Company was sued by Plaintiffs along with 24 its owners, Andre and Jane Doe Howard (“Lone Wolf Defendants”). 25 On November 15, 2013, the Court granted a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant 26 Hurley and the ATF Defendants (collectively, “the Federal Defendants”). Doc. 68. 27 28 1 The ATF Defendants have not filed a response, but Defendant Hurley has filed a response that represents the interests of all Federal Defendants. 1 Because Plaintiffs still have claims pending against the Lone Wolf Defendants, the order 2 did not dispose of all claims in this matter. The Lone Wolf Defendants also have asserted 3 cross-claims against Cross-Defendant United States of America. 4 II. Legal Standard. 5 Rule 54(b) provides that when more than one claim for relief is presented in an 6 action, or when multiple parties are involved, the district court may direct the entry of a 7 final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties “only if the 8 court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 9 Judgment under Rule 54(b) is appropriate where there are distinct and severable claims 10 and where immediate review of the adjudicated claims will not result in later duplicative 11 proceedings at the trial or appellate level. See Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 12 878-89 (9th Cir. 2005). Judgment under Rule 54(b) is not appropriate in routine cases 13 where the risk of “multiplying the number of proceedings and of overcrowding the 14 appellate docket” outweighs “pressing needs . . . for an early judgment.” Morrison- 15 Knudsen Co. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). 16 III. Analysis. 17 Plaintiffs seek to appeal the Court’s dismissal of their Bivens claims against the 18 Federal Defendants. Doc. 74 at 2. The Lone Wolf Defendants agree with Plaintiffs’ 19 motion. Doc. 75. Doc. 76. The Federal Defendants argue that the prospect of multiple 20 appeals weighs against granting Plaintiffs’ motion. Doc. 76 at 3. In addition, because all 21 claims arise out of weapons transactions alleged to have occurred during Operation Fast 22 and Furious, the Federal Defendants argue that this is not a case where separate appeals 23 may be justified by separable claims. Id. 24 The first requirement for a Rule 54(b) certification is satisfied. The Court has 25 finally and completely resolved Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims against the Federal Defendants. 26 Wood, 422 F.3d at 878. 27 28 The Court must next determine whether “there is any just reason for delay.” Id. This in turn implicates “the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.” -2- Id. 1 Relevant factors include (1) whether a Rule 54(b) judgment would result in unnecessary 2 appellate review; (2) whether the claims finally adjudicated are separate, distinct, and 3 independent of other claims; (3) whether appellate review of the adjudicated claims could 4 be mooted by future developments in the case; and (4) whether an appellate court would 5 have to decide the same issues more than once if there were subsequent appeals. Id. at 6 878 n. 2. These factors favor a Rule 54(b) certification. 7 First, certification will not result in unnecessary appellate review. Plaintiffs 8 clearly intend to appeal the Court’s Bivens ruling, and that ruling addresses a novel issue 9 that has not been decided by the Ninth Circuit. Appellate review is necessary. 10 Second, Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims against the Federal Defendants are separate and 11 distinct from their state law claims against the Lone Wolf Defendants. Although the 12 claims arise out of the same complex of facts, they are completely separate legal theories 13 against different kinds of defendants. 14 Third, review of the Bivens claims will not be mooted by any future developments 15 in the case. The Court can foresee no ruling on the claims related to the Lone Wolf 16 Defendants that will alter or affect its ruling on the Bivens claims against the Federal 17 Defendants. 18 Fourth, the appellate court will not be required to decide the same issues more 19 than once if there are subsequent appeals. Any appeal related to the claims against the 20 Lone Wolf Defendants will not raise the Bivens issue that resulted in dismissal of the 21 Federal Defendants and that Plaintiffs wish to appeal. 22 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of final judgment under 23 Rule 54(b) (Doc. 74) is granted. Final judgment is entered in favor of the Federal 24 Defendants for reasons stated in the Court’s previous order (Doc. 68). 25 Dated this 13th day of January, 2014. 26 27 28 -3-

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?