Williams v. Khan et al

Filing 154

ORDERED that the parties' request for an indicative ruling is GRANTED. The Court shall vacate the portions of its March 26, 2019 Order addressing Count Two of the First Amended Complaint and grant the parties' motion for voluntary dismissal of that claim, if the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remands the currently pending appeal from the March 26, 2019 Order back to this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1(b), the parties shall promptly notify the circuit clerk under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 of the Court's decision. Signed by Magistrate Judge Eric J Markovich on 7/16/2019. (ARC)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Elizabeth Williams,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-00029-TUC-EJM

Levi Khan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff and Defendant Campas’s Joint Conditional

16

Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Family Separation Claim. (Doc. 152). The parties ask

17

this Court to issue an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, indicating

18

that the Court would dismiss Plaintiff’s family separation claim (Count Two of the First

19

Amended Complaint (Doc. 84))1 and vacate the portions of this Court’s March 26, 2019

20

Order (Doc. 142) addressing that claim, if the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

21

Circuit remanded Defendant Campas’s currently pending interlocutory appeal back to this

22

Court. Because both of the interested parties jointly move for voluntary dismissal of Count

23

Two, and in the interests of justice and judicial economy, the Court will grant the request

24

for an indicative ruling.

25

I.

Background

26

This case was removed from Pima County Superior Court to the Federal District

27

Court for the District of Arizona on January 18, 2017. (Doc. 1). After discovery, Plaintiff

28

1

This claim is only alleged against Defendant Campas and does not name Defendants
Rosebeck and Davis.

1

filed two motions for Partial Summary Judgment: one against Defendant Erika Campas

2

(Doc. 100) and another against Defendants Rosebeck and Davis. (Doc. 101). Defendant

3

Campas also filed a Partial Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the issue of

4

qualified immunity. (Doc. 106). This Court denied all three motions for summary

5

judgment on March 26, 2019. (Doc. 140).

6

Defendant Campas subsequently provided notice to the Court on April 23, 2019 of

7

her interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the denial of her

8

cross-motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 142). Because of that appeal, Defendant

9

Campas filed a Motion to Stay the Deadline to File a Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (Doc.

10

141), which Defendants Davis and Rosebeck joined. (Doc. 144). On June 21, 2019 this

11

Court granted the motion to stay, finding that the filing of Defendant Campas’s appeal as

12

to her qualified immunity claim automatically divested this Court of jurisdiction to proceed

13

to trial on any of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Campas. (Doc. 151). The Court

14

further found that a stay as to all claims and all defendants was warranted because

15

bifurcation would go against the interests of fairness and judicial economy.

16

Plaintiff and Defendant Campas now jointly move for voluntary dismissal of the

17

family separation claim (Count Two) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

18

(Doc. 152). However, Defendant Campas’s joinder in this motion is contingent upon the

19

Court vacating portions of its March 25, 2019 Order regarding Count Two. Id.

20

II.

21

The filing of an interlocutory appeal regarding qualified immunity automatically

22

divests a district court of jurisdiction to proceed with trial absent certain findings. Chuman

23

v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992). However, “[i]f a timely motion is made for

24

relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed

25

and is pending, the court may . . . state . . . that it would grant the motion if the court of

26

appeals remands for that purpose.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(3). If the district court states

27

that it would grant the motion, then the movant “must promptly notify the circuit clerk

28

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(b). The circuit

Law

-2-

1

court of appeals may, in its discretion, then remand the case for further proceedings and

2

either retain jurisdiction or dismiss the appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 12.1(b).

3

A motion made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) allows an action to

4

be dismissed by court order on terms the court considers proper. Additionally, a court may

5

vacate a previously issued order if there is a reason that justifies that relief. Fed. R. Civ. P.

6

60(b)(6). This provision in the federal rules gives courts broad authority to vacate

7

judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice. See United States v.

8

Sparks, 685 F.2d 1128 (9th Cir. 1982); Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall Reservation

9

v. Leavitt, 408 F.Supp.2d 1073 (D. Or. 2005); Hawaii Cnty. Green Party v. Clinton, 124

10

F.Supp.2d 1173 (D. Hawaii 2000).

11

III.

12

Here, this Court no longer retains jurisdiction to issue an order granting the Joint

13

Conditional Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Family Separation Claim due to Defendant

14

Campas’s interlocutory appeal. However, as explained above, the Court may issue an

15

indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 indicating that it would grant

16

the motion if the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the matter back to this

17

Court.

Discussion

18

Given that both parties jointly move to voluntarily dismiss Count Two of the First

19

Amended Complaint, this Court would grant that motion. Further, in the interests of justice

20

and judicial economy, the Court would also vacate the portion of its March 26, 2019 Order

21

addressing Count Two of the First Amended Complaint. By vacating that portion of the

22

Order, all of Plaintiff’s claims under Count Two would then be resolved and her remaining

23

claims could proceed to trial. Further, if the Court of Appeals remands the matter back to

24

this Court, the stay issued by this Court will be lifted and this case can be set for trial on

25

all of Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants.

26

IV.

27

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ request for an indicative

28

ruling is GRANTED. The Court shall vacate the portions of its March 26, 2019 Order

Conclusion

-3-

1

addressing Count Two of the First Amended Complaint and grant the parties’ motion for

2

voluntary dismissal of that claim, if the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

3

remands the currently pending appeal from the March 26, 2019 Order back to this Court.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

5

62.1(b), the parties shall promptly notify the circuit clerk under Federal Rule of Appellate

6

Procedure 12.1 of the Court’s decision.

7

Dated this 16th day of July, 2019.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-