Lighthouse Resources Inc. et al v. Inslee et al

Filing 336

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 54 (B), denying 327 Motion for Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

Case 3:18-cv-05005-RJB Document 336 Filed 05/28/19 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9
10

LIGHTHOUSE RESOURCES INC., et al.,

11

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05005-RJB

Plaintiffs,

12

and

13

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
Intervenor-Plaintiff,

14
v.

15
16
17
18
19

JAY INSLEE, et al.,
Defendants,
and
WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL
COUNCIL, et al.,
Intervenor-Defendants.

20
21

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY
OF FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER
FED. R. CIV. P. 54 (B)

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs and Intervenor-Plaintiff’s Protective

22

Motion for Entry of Final Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (b). Dkt. 327. The Court has

23

considered pleadings filed regarding the motion and the remaining record.

24

ORDER - 1

Case 3:18-cv-05005-RJB Document 336 Filed 05/28/19 Page 2 of 5

This case challenges the State’s denial of a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification

1
2

and denial of request for approval of a sublease of state-owned aquatic lands for Plaintiffs’

3

proposed coal export terminal. In the pending motions, the Plaintiffs and Intervenor-Plaintiff1

4

now move the Court for an order directing judgment be entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (b). For

5

the reasons provided below, the motion (Dkt. 327) should be denied.

6

I.

7

FACTS

As is relevant to the pending motion, on October 23, 2018, the Defendants’ motion for

8

partial summary judgment was granted and all claims against Defendant Hilary Franz were

9

dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Dkt. 170. On December 11, 2018,

10

Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment was granted and the Plaintiffs’ preemption

11

claims under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (“ICCTA”) and the Ports

12

and Waterways Safety Act (“PWSA”) were dismissed. Dkt. 200.

13

On April 11, 2019, the undersigned determined that temporary abstention was

14

appropriate, and the case was stayed pursuant to Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman, 312

15

U.S. 496 (1941). Dkt. 326. The Court found that “in addition to the principles of comity raised

16

by Pullman, considerations of judicial economy and the likelihood of inconsistent results favor

17

temporary abstention.” Dkt. 326, at 8. The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 10, 2019.

18

Dkts. 329 and 331.

19

The Plaintiffs now move the Court to direct entry of a final judgment on the October 23,

20

2018 Order on Defendant Hilary Franz’s Motion for Summary Judgment under the Eleventh

21

Amendment (Dkt. 170) and on the December 11, 2018 Order on Defendants’ and Intervenor-

22

Defendants’ Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 200). Dkt. 327.

23
24

1

References herein to Plaintiff includes the Intervenor-Plaintiff.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 54 (B) ORDER - 2

Case 3:18-cv-05005-RJB Document 336 Filed 05/28/19 Page 3 of 5

II.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

DISCUSSION

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (b), “Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties,”
provides,
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.
“Rule 54 (b) allows a district court in appropriate circumstances to enter judgment on one or

10

more claims while others remain unadjudicated.” Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., 905

11

F.3d 565, 574 (9th Cir. 2018). “[T]he district court first must render an ultimate disposition of an

12

individual claim. The court then must find that there is no just reason for delaying judgment on

13

this claim.” Id.

14

A. DISPOSITION OF AN INDIVIDUAL CLAIM

15

The first requirement – ultimate disposition of an individual claim – is met as to both

16

orders. All claims were dismissed against Hilary Franz in the October 2018 order and the

17

preemption claims were all dismissed in the December 11, 2018 order on the partial motion for

18

summary judgment.

19

B. NO JUST REASON FOR DELAY

20

The second requirement – no just reason for delay - is not met. “In deciding whether

21

there are no just reasons to delay the appeal of individual final judgments . . . a district court

22

must take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved.” Curtiss-

23

Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980)(internal citations omitted).

24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 54 (B) ORDER - 3

Case 3:18-cv-05005-RJB Document 336 Filed 05/28/19 Page 4 of 5

1
2

1. Judicial Administrative Interests
Consideration of the judicial administrative interests “is necessary to assure that

3

application of the Rule effectively preserves the historic federal policy against piecemeal

4

appeals.” Curtiss-Wright, at 8 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In regard to

5

judicial administrative interests, district courts should consider “whether the claims under review

6

were separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims

7

already determined [are] such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more

8

than once even if there were subsequent appeals.” Id.

9

Directing entry of a final judgment on the two orders, at this time, would increase the

10

likelihood of piecemeal appeals. If the Ninth Circuit determines that the order temporarily

11

staying this case is non-final and unappealable, certification of these two orders would mean that

12

the appeal on them would go forward while the appeal on the stay (and stayed claims) would not.

13

Some of the issues underlying the partial summary judgment order on preemption and the order

14

dismissing Hilary Franz are the same, or are related to, other issues in the case, such that they

15

may not be as easily separable as Plaintiffs maintain. Moreover, it is not clear that “no

16

appeallate court would have to decide the same issues more than once” if there were subsequent

17

appeals. Curtiss-Wright, at 8. Judicial administrative interests counsel against certifying these

18

orders for immediate appeal.

19

2. Equities

20

The equities also do not favor certifying the orders as final. The issues raised in this case are

21

complex and involve extensive state proceedings. The disputes of whether the State should have

22

issued the Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification and whether the sublease of state-owned

23

aquatic lands should have been approved have been ongoing for years. The Plaintiffs assert that

24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 54 (B) ORDER - 4

Case 3:18-cv-05005-RJB Document 336 Filed 05/28/19 Page 5 of 5

1

they would be prejudiced if the Court does not finalize these two orders on summary judgment.

2

The Defendants maintain that they would be prejudiced if the Court does. Certifying these

3

orders as final only further complicates matters. Considering the shifting sands upon which this

4

case sits, the Court should decline to certify the October 23, 2018 Order on Defendant Hilary

5

Franz’s Motion for Summary Judgment under the Eleventh Amendment (Dkt. 170) and the

6

December 11, 2018 Order on Defendants’ and Intervenor-Defendants’ Motions for Partial

7

Summary Judgment (Dkt. 200) as final under Rule 54 (b).
III.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and
to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
Dated this 28th day of May, 2019.

A
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 54 (B) ORDER - 5