Krause v. Yavapai, County of

1 WO KAB 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Jason Derek Krause, No. CV 19-08054-PCT-MTL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, v. ORDER Yavapai County, et al., Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Jason Derek Krause, who is represented by counsel, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Doc. 56.)

18 In an April 3, 2020 Order, the Court dismissed Defendant Peele from this action on the basis of absolute immunity. (Doc. 83.) Plaintiff now seeks entry of Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to his claims against Defendant Peele. Defendant Peele opposes the Motion1 on the ground that granting the 23 1 Defendant Erfert, Hueske, Weaver, Yavapai County, Mascher, Diffendaffer, McFarland, Williamson, Bellemore, Price and Dannison filed a “Joint Joinder in Defendant Peele’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 54(b) Judgment,” but, in the content of their “Joinder,” do not appear to actually join in the Response in opposition to the Motion. (See Doc. 101.) Rather, these Defendants appear to agree to the entering of a Rule 54(b) Judgment and appear to request expansion of the relief sought. (See Doc. 101 at 2 (“Should the court be inclined to include Rule 54(b) language regarding dismissal of Defendant Peele, it should also include Rule 54(b) language as to its entire ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.”).) To the extent these Defendants seek to expand the relief sought by Plaintiff, their Motion is procedurally inappropriate for a number of reasons and they cite Motion will invite piecemeal appeals and force the Court of Appeals “to hear this same case twice.” (Doc. 100.)

3 Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “ [w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court determines there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Rule 54(b) “was adopted ‘specifically to avoid the possible injustice of delay[ing] judgment o[n] a distinctly separate claim [pending] adjudication of the entire case . . . . The Rule thus aimed to augment, not diminish, appeal opportunity.’” Jewel v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 810 10 F.3d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 574 U.S. 405, 410 (2015)) (omission in original).

12 “It is left to the sound judicial discretion of the district court to determine the ‘appropriate time’ when each final decision in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal.”

14 Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) (internal citation omitted). In making this determination, it is proper for courts to consider “whether the claims under review were separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals.” Id. 19 Here, there is no question that absolute immunity is a distinct issue, and even if the Court of Appeals were to take other appeals in this action, it would not have to decide absolute immunity more than once and would not have to delve into the facts regarding absolutely immunity more than once. Defendant Peele’s arguments to the contrary are unconvincing. Accordingly, there is no just reason for delay and Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 54(b) Judgment will be granted.

25 . . . .

26 . . . .

28 to no law supporting their position. Accordingly, to the extent any relief is sought in this “Joinder,” it is denied.

ITIS ORDERED: 2 (1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to Plaintiffs Motion for Final Judgment Under Rule 54(b) (Doc. 96).

4 (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Final Judgment Under Rule 54(b) (Doc. 96) is granted.

6 (3) Because there is no just reason for delay, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the Clerk | of Court must enter final partial judgment of dismissal solely as to Defendant Peele and | all claims against Defendant Peele.

9 Dated this 6th day of August, 2020.

Wicked T. diburde Michael T. Liburdi 13 United States District Judge