Balthrope v. Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services et al
Filing
105
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 10/17/2012 ORDERING that the 10/18/2012 hearing on this matter is VACATED; RECOMMENDING 93 Motion for Certification filed by Sacramento Child Advocates be granted; and the Clerk be directed to enter judgment as to SCA defendants. Matter referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R may be filed within 14 days from the date of service of these findings and recommendations. (Waggoner, D)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ARIEL BALTHROPE,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. 2:10-cv-3003-KJM-JFM (PS)
vs.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
et al.,
ORDER AND
Defendants.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
/
Pending before the court is a motion for certification filed by defendants
18
Sacramento Child Advocates, Inc. (“SCA”), Robert Wilson, Rebekah Sass and Lisa Thor (sued
19
as Lisa Presley) (collectively, “the SCA defendants”). On January 26, 2012, these defendants
20
were dismissed from this action with prejudice following the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller’s
21
adoption of the undersigned’s December 8, 2011 findings and recommendations recommending
22
that the SCA defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted.
23
The SCA defendants have returned to the court for the limited purpose of
24
obtaining certification of the order dismissing all claims against them as a final judgment
25
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). These defendants seek certification on the
26
grounds that SCA no longer exists beyond winding up its affairs and the individual SCA
1
1
defendants are employed elsewhere. They argue that they should not be put to the expense of
2
monitoring this matter that no longer concerns them and potentially face an appeal filed years in
3
the future. The remaining defendants in this action have filed a statement of non-opposition.
4
Plaintiff has filed an opposition.
5
In the context of this multi-defendant, multi-claim case, a designation of “final
6
judgment” under Rule 54(b) regarding the claims against the SCA defendants requires (1) that
7
the judgment in question be an “ultimate disposition” of an individual claim among multiple
8
claims and (2) that there be no reason for delaying the determination. Curtiss–Wright Corp. v.
9
Gen. Elec. Corp., 446 U.S. 1, 7–8 (1980). Both those criteria are met here.
10
In her opposition, plaintiff asserts that the SCA defendants are seeking
11
certification now because they do not want to list the current proceeding as an ongoing
12
proceeding in their bankruptcy petition. The SCA defendants counter that they have not filed for
13
bankruptcy. They further argue that even if bankruptcy was a possibility, plaintiff has not
14
explained how that would affect the court’s analysis. The SCA defendants’ point is well-taken.
15
The court thus finds that there is no reason for delay and directs judgment be entered as to the
16
SCA defendants.
17
18
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the October 18, 2012 hearing on
this matter is vacated; and
19
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
20
1. The SCA defendants’ motion for certification be granted; and
21
3. The Clerk of the Court be directed to enter judgment as to the SCA defendants.
22
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
23
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
24
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
25
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
26
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the
2
1
objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The
2
parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
3
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
4
DATED: October 17, 2012.
5
6
7
8
/balt3003.jo(11)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?