United States of America v. Real Property and Improvements Located at 2366 San Pablo Avenue, Berkeley, California
Filing
153
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST CLAIMANT CITY OF BERKELEY by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 137 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2014)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 13-cv-02027-JST
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
11
REAL PROPERTY AND
IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 2366
SAN PABLO AVENUE, BERKELEY,
CALIFORNIA,
12
Defendant.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT AND
ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
AGAINST CLAIMANT CITY OF
BERKELEY
Re: ECF No. 137
Now before the Court is Claimant City of Berkeley’s unopposed motion for entry of final
13
14
judgment brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). ECF No. 137. For the
15
reasons discussed below, the Court will GRANT the motion.
16
I.
BACKGROUND
17
In its June 23, 2014 order, the Court granted the United States’ motion to strike Claimant
18
City of Berkeley from this forfeiture action for lack of standing. ECF No. 130. As a basis for its
19
standing, the City asserted an interest in tax proceeds generated by the medical cannabis
20
dispensary that operated on the property subject to forfeiture (“Property”). ECF No. 16. The City
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
also asserted an interest in its ability to regulate and control medical cannabis dispensaries located
within its jurisdiction. Id. The Court found that the City of Berkeley’s interest in the Property
was insufficient to confer on the City standing to proceed here. ECF No. 130. While the City is
no longer part of this action, Claimants Nahla Droubi (the owner/lessor of the Property) and
Berkeley Patients Group (the lessee) remain in the action and challenge the Property’ forfeiture.
On July 7, 2014, the City of Berkeley filed the instant motion for entry of final judgment
pursuant to Rule 54(b). The City contends that, if the Court grants the motion, the City will be
able immediately to appeal the issue of standing, and thereby to preserve the City’s interests and,
1
if successful, seek redress in this Court. ECF No. 137 at 1-2. On July 22, 2014, the United States
2
filed a statement of non-opposition to the City’s motion. ECF No. 145.
3
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
4
In relevant part, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides: “when multiple parties are
5
involved [in an action], the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer
6
than all . . . parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 54(b) to require a district court facing a Rule
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
54(b) motion, first, to determine whether the motion concerns a final judgment. Curtiss-Wright
Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1980). A judgment is final for the purposes of Rule
54(b) when it “terminates the litigation between the parties . . . and leaves nothing to be done but
to enforce by execution what has been determined.” Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513, 518
(1956).
After a district court has determined whether a judgment is final, it must determine
13
14
whether, in its discretion, any “just reason for delay” exists. The court does so by balancing
judicial administrative interests and the equities involved. Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. 8, 10. In
15
particular, a court should “consider such factors as whether the claims under review [a]re
16
separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already
17
18
19
20
21
22
determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once
even if there were subsequent appeals.” Id. at 8.
III.
DISCUSSION
The instant motion meets the standards for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b).
A.
Finality of Judgment
The Court’s order granting the United States’ motion to strike the City of Berkeley for lack
23
of standing disposed of all claims between the City and the United States in this action. The City
24
is no longer a participant here, and “nothing [remains] to be done but to enforce by execution what
25
[the Court has] determined.” The Court finds that it is faced with a final judgment for the
26
purposes of Rule 54(b).
27
B.
28
The Court finds no just reason for delay of entry of final judgment against the City of
Reason for Delay
2
1
Berkeley. Entry of judgment will not cause additional administrative burdens on the courts, and
2
the equities weigh in favor of allowing the City to appeal now to the Ninth Circuit.
3
4
i.
Administrative interests
No judicial administrative interests prevent entry of final judgment here. Of significant
5
concern when evaluating a motion for entry of final judgment is “the historic federal policy
6
against piecemeal appeals,” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 438 (1956), which
7
can precipitate duplication of the judiciary’s time and effort. But here, as the City asserts, any
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
appeal the City brings now would concern the issue of standing—a discrete question separate from
the merits (which the remaining parties might appeal later); allowing the City to appeal now would
not present a risk of duplicative appeals before the Ninth Circuit. See Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at
8 (holding that entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) was appropriate where “the claims under
review were separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated[, and] the nature of the claims
already determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more
than once even if there were subsequent appeals.”).
In particular, the Court notes that, in any subsequent appeal that may be filed on the merits
15
of the forfeiture action, the Ninth Circuit would not have to rely on and delve into the same facts
16
and law it relied on to resolve the standing issue. See Noel v. Hall, 568 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir.
17
18
19
20
21
22
2009) (affirming district court’s entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) where “the factual bases of
many of the claims differ as to each defendant.”); cf. Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873 (9th
Cir. 2005) (reversing entry of separate judgment because of complete factual overlap between the
claim for which final judgment was entered and the extant claims in the district court action).
Here, the factual and legal bases of the standing issue and any merits issue have virtually
no overlap, besides the basic premise of the action. On appeal of the standing issue, the Ninth
23
Circuit would analyze the U.S. Supreme Court’s standing jurisprudence as applied to facts
24
regarding the City’s interest in tax proceeds and its ability to regulate medical cannabis
25
dispensaries, whereas an appeal of the forfeiture claims on the merits would most likely hinge on
26
the validity of the forfeiture or non-forfeiture of the Property under federal forfeiture statutes.
27
28
ii.
Equities
The City of Berkeley asserts that the equities weigh heavily in favor of granting final
3
1
judgment here because, “were the City forced to wait until all claims are adjudicated, its appeal
2
would be moot if the property were ultimately forfeited.” ECF No. 137 at 5-6.
3
While it is not certain that denial of the instant motion would render the City’s appellate
4
claims moot, the City has raised a sufficient concern that its rights will be prejudiced to tip the
5
balance of equities in its favor. Cf. Purdy Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Champion Home Builders Co.,
6
594 F.2d 1313, 1316-17 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming a finding of no just reason for delay in entry of
7
final judgment as to some claims where issues of law were unsettled because reversal of the
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
district court’s judgment likely would result in the need for a second trial). And because no party
has objected to the City’s motion, it appears that no other party is concerned that it would be
prejudiced by entry of final judgment. Accordingly, the equities appear to point clearly in favor of
granting the City’s Rule 54(b) motion.
CONCLUSION
12
13
14
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the City of Berkeley’s motion for
entry of final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), and ENTERS final judgment against the City and
in favor of the United States.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
Dated: September 25, 2014
17
18
19
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?