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)
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?