Hardesty et al v. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District et al

Filing 529

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/8/2017 ORDERING that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs according to the 3/21/2017 jury verdict and to CLOSE this case. Plaintiffs' 508 motion to sever is DENIED as moot. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSEPH HARDESTY, et al.,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On March 21, 2017, after a lengthy trial, a jury returned a verdict largely in favor

19

of the Hardesty and Schneider plaintiffs. Hr’g Mins, ECF No. 465; Jury Verdict, ECF No. 469.

20

Although the clerk entered judgment against the defendants at trial, ECF No. 471, the court

21

vacated judgment in light of defendant Dennis O’Bryant’s pending interlocutory appeal, ECF No.

22

481, which precluded partial judgment without the court’s determination that “there is no just

23

reason for delay,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

24

In order to obtain final judgment against the defendants at trial, plaintiffs moved to

25

sever all adjudicated claims from the remaining claims against O’Bryant. ECF No. 508. Since

26

filing the motion, however, plaintiffs settled with O’Bryant, ECF No. 522, plaintiffs and

27

defendants Bryant, Gay Norris, Steve Testa, Bret Koehler and Curt Taras stipulated to the

28

dismissal of the remaining claims against these defendants in this court, ECF No. 525, the court
1

1

has dismissed those defendants with prejudice, ECF No. 528, and the Ninth Circuit dismissed

2

O’Bryant’s appeal, ECF No. 527.

3

Plaintiffs now ask the court to enter judgment on the March 21, 2017 jury verdict.

4

ECF No. 526. Because all claims against all parties have been disposed of by the parties’

5

voluntary dismissal identified above, the court’s orders or the jury’s verdict, judgment is

6

appropriate under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 58. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a)–(b),

7

58(a)–(d).

8
9

Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of
plaintiffs according to the March 21, 2017 jury verdict and to CLOSE THIS CASE.

10

Plaintiffs’ motion to sever, ECF No. 508, is DENIED as moot.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: June 8, 2017.

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2