Sadid v. Idaho State University et al
Filing
139
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER finding as moot in part and denying in part 130 Motion for District Court to Certify Final Judgment per F.R.C.P. 54(b) or, in the Alternative, to Certify as Appealable the Memorandum Decision and Order of March 28, 2013, Dkt. 28. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
HABIB SADID,
Case No. 4:11-cv-00103-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
v.
ARTHUR VAILAS, RICHARD
JACOBSEN, GRAHAM GARNER, DAVID
BEARD, and JOHN/JANE DOES I through
Z, whose true identities are presently
unknown,
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION
This Court has granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all but
one of plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff now asks the Court to enter a separate judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) on the dismissed claims. See Dkt. 130. For
the reasons explained below, the Court will deny this request.
BACKGROUND
In October 2009, Idaho State University fired the plaintiff, Dr. Habib Sadid. Dr.
Sadid responded by suing the university, its president, and other university employees.
Dr. Sadid alleges seven claims. In claims one through four, Dr. Sadid alleges that
defendants violated his federal constitutional right to free speech, procedural due process,
substantive due process, and equal protection. Claim five through seven allege tortious
interference with contract, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
See First Am. Compl., Dkt. 39. Earlier, the Court granted summary judgment in
defendants’ favor on all of these claims except for the defamation claim. A trial setting
conference is scheduled for May 21, 2013.
ANALYSIS
Dr. Sadid asks the Court to enter judgment on his dismissed claims so that he may
file an appeal on those claims while his defamation claim remains before this Court.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows district courts to enter a final
judgment on less than all of the claims in a multi-claim lawsuit. 1 However, the Court
must expressly find that there is “no just reason for delay” before directing a separate
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The district court must also consider the historic,
federal policy against piecemeal appeals. See Curtiss–Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). “Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be reserved for the unusual case
in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of
overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for
an early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.” Morrison–Knudsen Co. v.
1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides in pertinent part:
Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When an action presents
more than one claim relief ... or when multiple parties are involved, 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.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
J.D. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). “A similarity of legal or factual issues
will weigh heavily against entry of judgment under the rule, and in such cases a Rule
54(b) order will be proper only where necessary to avoid a harsh and unjust result,
documented by further and specific findings.” Id.
Dr. Sadid has not presented any good reason for entering a separate judgment in
this case. To support his motion, Dr. Sadid hypothesizes that the case should proceed
along the following lines:
(1)
Dr. Sadid would immediately pursue his Ninth Circuit appeal on six of his
seven claims.
(2)
This Court would theoretically agree to stay any further proceedings on the
defamation claim.
(3)
The Ninth Circuit would theoretically reverse this Court and hold that some
of the dismissed claims should, in fact, proceed to the jury.
(4)
Then, this Court would lift the stay on the defamation claim, and the parties
would try multiple claims in this Court.
(5)
After that trial, one of the parties might well appeal again to the Ninth
Circuit, but the plaintiff believes any such appeal would not trouble the
Ninth Circuit much because it would be “limited in nature since the issues
resolved in the first appeal could not be revisited under the law of the case
doctrine.” Reply, Dkt. 137, at 3.
Dr. Sadid’s projected litigation scenario does not support his request for a separate
judgment. Instead, it illustrates why the Court should deny the motion. First, there is an
obvious risk of piecemeal appeals. Second, when Dr. Sadid says a stay of his district
court action would be necessary pending appeal, he is implicitly admitting that all the
claims in this action should travel together – not separately. This is because there is
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
significant factual overlap between the defamation claim and the other claims in this
action. Third, Dr. Sadid has not truly explained how this case is different from any other
case where some claims are decided on a summary judgment and some proceed to trial.
Certainly, he has not put forth any “pressing” need for an early, separate judgment. He
has not identified any harsh or unjust result that might occur if the Court delays entry of
final judgment.
For all these reasons, the Court concludes that this is not an unusual case
warranting a separate judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for District Court to Certify Final Judgment per F.R.C.P.
54(b) or, in the Alternative, to Certify as Appealable the Memorandum Decision and
Order of March 28, 2013, Dkt. 28, Per 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is MOOT, in part, and
DENIED, in part. Specifically, plaintiff withdrew his alternative request for relief under
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which moots that part of the motion. The remaining request for
relief, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), is denied.
DATED: May 21, 2013
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 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?