V. et al v. Alisal Union School District et al

Filing 86

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT GARCIA'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54(b). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/20/2021. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2021)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

8
9

MARIO V., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.

12

HENRY AMENTA, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

Case No. 18-cv-00041-BLF
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
GARCIA’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF
FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 54(b)
[Re: ECF 85]

15
16

On May 12, 2021, the Court issued an order granting Defendant Diana Garcia’s motion for

17

summary judgment. See MSJ Order, ECF 84. On May 13, 2021, Defendant Garcia filed a

18

proposed judgment in her favor. See Proposed Judgment, ECF 85. The Court will enter the

19

proposed judgment for the reasons discussed below.

20

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the Court “may direct entry of a final

21

judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly

22

determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Judgments under Rule

23

54(b) are “reserved for the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of

24

proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the

25

litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.” Morrison-Knudsen Co.

26

v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). A court considering whether to enter a judgment

27

under Rule 54(b) should consider whether review of that judgment would require the appellate

28

court “to address legal or factual issues that are similar to those contained in the claims still

1

pending before the trial court.” Id. “A similarity of legal or factual issues will weigh heavily

2

against entry of judgment under the rule, and in such cases a Rule 54(b) order will be proper only

3

where necessary to avoid a harsh and unjust result, documented by further and specific findings.”

4

Id.

5

The Court finds that entry of judgment for Garcia is appropriate under these standards.

6

The issues addressed by this Court in granting summary judgment for Garcia are distinct from the

7

issues to be tried with respect to the claims against the only remaining defendant, Armenta.

8

Defendant Garcia, a public school principal, has had this lawsuit hanging over her head since

9

2018. Based on the evidence presented at summary judgment, Garcia had no involvement in the
shocking events that led to this lawsuit, and she is entitled to a judgment exonerating her in the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

eyes of her community. Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no just reason for delay in

12

entering judgment for Garcia in this case.

13
14
15

Garcia’s request for entry of final judgment in her favor is GRANTED. Garcia’s proposed
judgment shall be entered concurrently with the present order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18
19

Dated: May 20, 2021
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2