Mkhitaryan et al v. US Bancorp et al

Filing 202

ORDER Denying 192 Motion for Certificate of Appealability re 193 Notice of Appeal. (E-mail notice (NEF) sent to the US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.) Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/26/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

SERGEY MKHITARYAN and SUREN
MKHITARYAN,

2:11-CV-1055 JCM (CWH)

9
Plaintiffs,

10
11

v.

12

U.S. BANCORP, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is defendants Dennis Lyon McGee’s and Speedy Recovery, Inc.’s,

17

motion for certification of appealability pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). (Doc.

18

# 192). Plaintiffs Sergey and Suren Mkhitaryan have filed a response. (Doc. # 197).

19

On August 8, 2013, this court adopted Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and

20

recommendation, striking defendant McGee’s answer. (Doc. ## 177, 186). Defendants filed a

21

motion for clarification regarding the separate issues of liability and damages, and sought

22

clarification regarding Speedy’s ability to defend itself against both liability and damages. (Doc. #

23

188). This court issued an order clarifying that defendant McGee was barred from defending as to

24

liability but was permitted to defend against damages, and defendant Speedy was permitted to defend

25

against both. (Doc. # 190).

26

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) authorizes courts to direct entry of final judgment as to one or more,

27

but fewer than all, claims or parties. Courts may provide certification for purposes of an interim

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

appeal if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Id. However,

2

certification should not be permitted as a mechanism to allow “piecemeal appeals in cases which

3

should be reviewed only as single units.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S.

4

1, 10 (1980). Having considered the parties’ arguments, the court finds that the case should be

5

reviewed as a single unit, and an interim appeal is not appropriate.

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendants’ motion for

8
9

certification of appealability (doc. # 192) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED September 26, 2013.

10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-