Karam v. University of Arizona

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Rose Ann Karam, No. CV-18-00455-TUC-RCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. University of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On January 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal in the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 142.) Plaintiff attempts to appeal the Court’s dismissal of Defendants Southern Arizona Veterans Administration Health Care; United States Air Force, Davis- Monthan Air Force Base; Genoa Healthcare; Banner University Medical Center; and the partial dismissal of the Arizona Board of Regents. See id. 20 The Ninth Circuit may review an appeal of a final order, but the order must dispose of all defendants. See Munoz v. Small Bus. Admin., 644 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Under federal law, . . . dismissal [pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)] as to only one of several defendants is appealable when, . . . it has merged into the final judgment). This is true even when a court grants partial summary judgment in a plaintiff’s favor; the partial summary judgment order may only be appealed after there is a final order granting summary judgment for the defendant. See Interstate Prod. Credit Assoc. v. Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co., 944 F.2d 536, 538 n.1 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A]n appeal from a final judgment draws in || question all earlier, non-final orders and rulings which produced the judgment.”). “An || attempt to appeal a nonfinal decision of a district court remains just that, an attempt; it is a || nullity and does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction.” Century Laminating, Ltd. v. 4|| Montgomery, 595 F.2d 563, 567 (10th Cir. 1979). Moreover, an “application for an appeal ||... shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of || Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). It is within the district court’s discretion whether to allow an appeal from an order that does not dispose of all the || claims and parties, or whether denying an appeal is appropriate to “preserve the historic 9|| federal policy against piecemeal appeals.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 1980).

11 Not all Defendants were dismissed on summary judgment. Because there is no final order disposing of all Defendants, an appeal to the Ninth Circuit is premature. Furthermore, || any advantage to permitting an interlocutory appeal under Rule 54(b) is not outweighed by the interest in preventing piecemeal appeals. Therefore, the Court refuses to direct an entry || of final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to the dismissed parties 16]} and claims, and the Notice of Appeal has no effect on the District Court’s jurisdiction or || the progress of this case. The parties are still required to continue litigating this matter in || this Court, meet deadlines, and respond to any filed motions.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2020.

22 4] 23 Lb pL tK~ Cub 24 Honorable Raner ©. Collins 25 senior United States District Judge _2-