Ray Gibson v. Hagerty Insurance Agency et al

Filing 81

ORDER GRANTING Entry of Final Judgment as to Fewer Than All Claims and Parties Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/27/18. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RAY GIBSON,

10

Plaintiff,

11

Case No. 1:16-cv-00677-BAM

v.

ORDER GRANTING ENTRY OF FINAL
JUDGMENT AS TO FEWER THAN ALL
CLAIMS AND PARTIES PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
54(b).

12
13
14

HAGERTY INSURANCE AGENCY, et
al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/

15
16

HAGERTY INSURANCE AGENCY,
LLC, et al.,

17

Defendants/Counter-Claimants,

18

v.

19

RAY GIBSON, JUDY SLACK and
ROES 1 through 10,

20
21

Counter-Defendants.
________________________________

/

22
23

I.

Background

24

On June 29, 2018, the Court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff Ray Gibson’s complaint

25

in its entirety for failure to obey court orders and prosecute this action. The Court also vacated the

26

Scheduling Order and directed Hagerty Insurance Agency and Essentia Insurance Company to file

27

a written status report regarding their counterclaim for declaratory relief against Counter-

28

Defendants Ray Gibson and Judy Slack. (Doc. No. 77.)
1

1

On July 6, 2018, Counter-Claimants Hagerty Insurance Agency and Essentia Insurance

2

Agency filed a status report. In the report, Counter-Claimants assert that without a dismissal with

3

prejudice of Plaintiff Ray Gibson’s complaint or a grant of summary judgment, they are unclear

4

how to proceed with their counterclaim. (Doc. No. 78.)

5

Having considered Counter-Claimants’ response, the status of this action and the remaining

6

counterclaims, the Court now sua sponte raises the issue of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)

7

certification to allow entry of final judgment on Plaintiff Ray Gibson’s claims against Defendants

8

Hagerty Insurance Agency and Essentia Insurance Company. A court need not wait for parties to

9

move for Rule 54(b) certification. State Treasurer v. Barry, 168 F.3d 8, 14 (11th Cir. 1999) (“The

10

district court, sua sponte or on motion, could have certified that there was no reason for delay and

11

directed the entry of final judgment”). Instead, district courts may enter a Rule 54(b) judgment sua

12

sponte. Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 253 F.3d 695, 699 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Barry, 168 F.3d at 14.

13

II.

Legal Standard

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 provides “When an action presents more than one claim

15

for relief—whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple

16

parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer

17

than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for

18

delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In making a determination under Rule 54(b), a district court must

19

first determine that it is dealing with a final judgment, which means a decision that is “an ultimate

20

disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Curtiss-Wright

21

Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980), quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351

22

U.S. 427, 436 (1956). Second, the district court must determine “whether there is any just reason

23

for delay . . . . It is left to the sound judicial discretion of the district court to determine the

24

‘appropriate time’ when each final decision in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal. This

25

discretion is to be exercised ‘in the interest of sound judicial administration.’” Id. at 8 (citations

26

omitted). The district court should make specific findings setting forth the reasons for directing the

27

entry of judgment under Rule 54(b). Morrison-Knudsen v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir.

28

1981).
2

1

III.

Discussion

2

First, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Hagerty Insurance Agency and Essentia

3

Insurance Company have reached finality. The dismissal for failure to obey court orders and for

4

failure to prosecute is a clear “ultimate disposition” of Plaintiff’s claims.

5

Second, there is no just reason for delay. The basis for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims is

6

largely unconnected to the substantive counterclaims remaining in this action. As a result, the

7

dismissal is easily resolved separately and would not result in multiple appeals to resolve the same

8

issue, factors which weigh in favor of entering final judgment. See Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8

9

(“proper for the District Judge here to consider such factors as whether the claims under review

10

were separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims

11

already determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more

12

than once even if there were subsequent appeals”). There would be no saving of judicial time or

13

effort in waiting for resolution of the counterclaims before allowing any appeal regarding dismissal

14

of Plaintiff’s claims for failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. Further, “[f]rom a

15

policy perspective, for claims dismissed for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, ‘there is every just

16

and practical reason to promptly issue the final judgment.’” Ioane v. Spjute, No. 1:07-CV-0620

17

AWI EPG, 2016 WL 5235042, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2016) (citation omitted).

18

IV.

Conclusion and Order

19

Based on the foregoing, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter final judgment against

20

Plaintiff Ray Gibson and in favor of Defendants Hagerty Insurance Agency and Essentia Insurance

21

Company on Plaintiff’s complaint. This action shall proceed on the counterclaim.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 27, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
3