Wick v. Angelea et al

Filing 76

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 3/11/2013 DENYING 75 Motion for Entry of Judgment. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ERIC WICK,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

H. ANGELEA, V. MONROE, J. MEJIA,
and N. GRANIS,

14

Defendants.*
________________________________

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:09-cv-01027-GEB-EFB
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE
54(b)

Kerry McClelland filed a Request for Entry of Judgment on

16
17

February

26,

2013,

requesting

“that

Judgment

in

favor

of

Kerry

18

McClelland be entered” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)

19

54(b). (McClelland’s Req. 4:6-7, ECF No. 75.) McClelland argues the

20

February 11, 2013 Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

21

recommendations filed January 14, 2013, “dismiss[ed] all claims against

22

[him]” and “there is no just reason to delay entry of Judgment in [his]

23

favor . . . .” (Id. at 1:20-2:4.)

24

///

25

///

26
27
28

*

The caption has been amended according to the February 12,
2013 Order, which dismissed all claims against Defendants Kathleen
Prosper, Cindy Gutierrez, Joy Hirai, Kerry McClelland, and Stephen Peck.
(ECF No. 74, 2:5-7.)
1

1

Rule 54(b) provides:

2

When an action presents more than one claim for
relief . . . , or when multiple 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.
Otherwise, any order or other decision, however
designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the
claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than
all the parties does not end the action as to any
of the claims or parties and may be revised at any
time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating
all the claims and all the parties’ rights and
liabilities.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

In

applying

this

rule,

“[a]

district

court

must

first

10
determine that it has rendered a final judgment, that is, a judgment
11
that is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the
12
course of a multiple claims action.” Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d
13
873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Then [the
14
district court] must determine whether there is any just reason for
15
delay.” Id. “It is left to the sound judicial discretion of the district
16
court to determine the appropriate time when each final decision in a
17
multiple claims action is ready for appeal. This discretion is to be
18
exercised

in

the

interest

of

sound

judicial

administration.”

Id.

19
(internal quotation marks omitted). Factors to consider include:
20
21
22
23
24

(1)
whether
certification
would
result
in
unnecessary appellate review; (2) whether the
claims finally adjudicated were separate, distinct,
and independent of any other claims; (3) whether
review of the adjudicated claims would be mooted by
any future developments in the case; and (4)
whether an appellate court would have to decide the
same issues more than once even if there were
subsequent appeals.

25
Mountain View Hosp., L.L.C v. Sahara, Inc., No. 4:07-cv-00464-BLW, 2012
26
WL 397604, at *1 (D. Idaho Feb. 7, 2012) (citing Wood, 422 F.3d at 878).
27
28
2

1

McClelland has not shown sufficient justification for entry of

2

partial final judgment under Rule 54(b). Therefore, his motion is

3

DENIED.

4

Dated:

March 11, 2013

5
6
7

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3