Petekeiwicz v. Castle Rock, Town of et al

Filing 66

ORDER denying 56 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b) and Stay Pending Appeal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT in Defendants' favor. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 5/12/2015.(tscha, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01865-RM-KLM
THERESA PETEKEIWICZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORPORAL TROY STEMBEL, in his official and individual capacities; and
TERRY WATTS, in his official and individual capacities; and
TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Unopposed Motion to Certify Order as
Final Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and Stay Pending Appeal” (ECF No. 56, the “Motion to
Certify”). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that, in cases where there are
remaining claims prior to appeal, “the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or
more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no
just reason for delay.” See Curtiss–Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1980).
“Rule 54(b) establishes three prerequisites for appeal of a separate final judgment on fewer than
all claims in a lawsuit: (1) multiple claims; (2) a final decision on at least one claim; and (3) a
determination by the district court that there is no just reason for delay.” Jordan v. Pugh, 425
F.3d 820, 826 (10th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).

Here, the first prerequisite is easily satisfied as there were claims asserted against
multiple defendants and all but one defendant has been dismissed entirely from the case. With
regard to the second requirement, the issue of whether a judgment is truly “final” as that term has
been judicially determined under Rule 54(b) requires an examination of “whether the claims
under review [are] separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature
of the claims already determined [are] such that no appellate court would have to decide the
same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals.” Stockmans Water Co. LLC
v. Vaca Partners L.P., 425 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446
U.S. at 8) (brackets in original). “Interrelated legal claims and alternative theories for recovery
should be litigated together and appealed together.” Jordan, 425 F.3d at 829; see, e.g. Genberg
v. Porter, No. 11-cv-02434-WYD-MEH, 2014 WL 793441, at *2-3 (D.Colo. Feb. 26, 2014);
Chavez v. Hatterman, No. 06-cv-02525-WYD-MEH, 2009 WL 1187157, at *1-2 (D.Colo. Apr.
30, 2009).
In this case, all of Plaintiff’s claims revolve around the same constellation of facts and
cannot be separated for purposes of an interlocutory appeal; Plaintiff’s claims are ultimately no
more than “alternative theories for recovery” based on the injury Plaintiff suffered when her arm
was broken by the acts of Defendant Troy Stembel (“Stembel”), the only remaining Defendant,
when Stembel and Terry Watts (“Watts”) went to Plaintiff’s home to investigate a report that
Plaintiff had made suicidal threats. Jordan, 425 F.3d at 829. The Complaint (ECF No. 1) lists
Defendants “Stembel and Watts” together in each count against them (see, e.g. Id. at ¶¶ 45, 47)
and Plaintiff’s claim against the Town of Castle Rock is based solely on a determination of
liability as to Stembel and Watts. (See Id. at ¶¶ 56-57.) Despite the fact that no party objects to
2

the Court granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify, the claims Plaintiff seeks to appeal are factually
inseparable from the claims that would remain with this Court and so her motion is denied.
Having denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify, the Court now sua sponte reconsiders its
decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this case that it made in its Order of April 14,
2015. (ECF No. 53, at 12 n. 3.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if the district court has dismissed all claims
over which it has original jurisdiction.” Barlow v. C.R. England, Inc., 703 F.3d 497, 511 (10th
Cir. 2012); see Merrifield v. Board of Cnty. Comm’rs for the Cnty. of Santa Fe, 654 F.3d 1073,
1085 (10th Cir. 2011). The Tenth Circuit has “generally held that ‘[i]f federal claims are
dismissed before trial, leaving only issues of state law, the federal court should decline the
exercise of jurisdiction by dismissing the case without prejudice.’” Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d
1213, 1229 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bauchman v. West High Sch., 132 F.3d 542, 549 (10th Cir.
1997)). “Notions of comity and federalism demand that a state court try its own lawsuits, absent
compelling reasons to the contrary.” Thatcher Enters. v. Cache Cnty. Corp., 902 F.2d 1472,
1478 (10th Cir. 1990).
In this case, the Court has dismissed all of Plaintiff’s federal claims. Further, the Court
has discussed with the parties the prospects of proceeding to trial on the state law claims at this
time. The Court understands that neither party opposes a declination of the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction. Upon reconsideration, and in light of the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s
Motion to Certify, the Court declines to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining
claims in this case because it has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
3

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Certify
Order as Final Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and Stay Pending Appeal (ECF No. 56) is DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 37) is DISMISSED in full and
without prejudice based on this Court’s lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT in Defendants’ favor.
DATED this 12th day of May, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

4