Haynes v. Hanson et al

Filing 73

ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURTS MAY 8 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT re 57 JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANTS BRENDA TOLBERT, DENNIS HERRERA, JOANNE HOEPER AND DANIEL ZAHEER. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 12, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GREGORY M. HAYNES,

Case No. 11-cv-05021-JST

Plaintiff,
8
ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT’S
MAY 8 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

v.
9
10

CHRISTIAN HANSON, et al.,

Re: ECF No. 57

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Upon reviewing the docket, the Court has observed that its May 8 entry of judgment failed

14

to “expressly determine[] that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of final judgment,” as

15

required by Federal Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court now clarifies

16

that it intended to expressly so find.

17

In entering judgment as to Defendants Tolbert, Herrera, Hoeper and Zaheer, the Court has

18

considered whether “the appellate court will be required to address legal or factual issues that are

19

similar to those contained in the claims still pending before the trial court.” Morrison-Knudsen

20

Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court based its dismissal on issues of

21

res judicata and quasi-judicial immunity that do not apply to any other defendants in this case.

22

See Order Granting Motions to Dismiss, ECF No. 55, at 5:12-9:5; 13:11-19. As a secondary basis

23

for dismissing the claims against Defendant Tolbert, the Court also considered factual issues that

24

were unique to that defendant. See id., at 9:17-10:2; 13:19-24. The dismissal also completely

25

disposes of all claims against these particular defendants, and if upheld on appeal would make

26

further litigation as to those parties unnecessary. See Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. Carlsberg Fin.

27

Corp., 689 F.2d 815, 817 (9th Cir. 1982).

28

Therefore, the Court hereby clarifies, nunc pro tunc to May 8, that it has “determined that

1

there is no just reason for delay in the entry of final judgment on this order.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

2

54(b).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 12, 2013

5
6
7

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2