Mason v Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, et al

Filing 38

ORDER that 36 Motion for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) certification is DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/20/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

ARIANA MASON,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:15-CV-738 JCM (NJK)
ORDER

v.
OFFICER S. IZZO, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court is plaintiff Ariana Mason’s motion for Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b) certification. (ECF No. 36).

15

On December 22, 2016, the court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of

16

defendants on plaintiff’s § 1983, Monell, and negligent training and supervision claims. (ECF No.

17

26).

18

In the instant motion, plaintiff moves for Rule 54(b) certification on the federal claims

19

against defendants the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and officer Izzo and for a stay

20

pending certification. (ECF No. 36). Plaintiff argues that 54(b) certification is proper to allow her

21

federal claims to be resolved by the Ninth Circuit prior to trial going forward on her state law

22

claims. (ECF No. 36).

23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides as follows:
When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a claim,
counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—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. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all
the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be
revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and
all the parties’ rights and liabilities.

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

2

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has found that “[a] similarity of legal or factual issues will

3

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

4

be proper only where necessary to avoid a harsh and unjust result, documented by further and

5

specific findings.” Frank Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir.

6

1985) (quoting Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981)).

7

Here, plaintiff fails to set forth any harsh or unjust results in absence of a Rule 54(b)

8

certification. Further, plaintiff fails to explain why she waited over six months before filing the

9

instant motion. Pursuant to the pretrial order entered April 10, 2017, trial has been set for October

10
11
12

30, 2017. (ECF No. 33).
In light of the foregoing, the court declines to certify its December 22nd order and will
deny plaintiff’s motion.

13

Accordingly,

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15
16
17
18

54(b) certification (ECF No. 36) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED June 20, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-