1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 PATRICK VARGAS, No. 2:22-cv-01454 WBS CSK 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER 15 CITY OF TRACY; SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY FIRE 16 AUTHORITY; RANDALL BRADLEY, in his individual and 17 official capacities; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 On February 21, 2025, the court granted the City of 22 Tracy’s (“City”) motion for summary judgment in its entirety, 23 thereby disposing of all claims against the City. (See Docket 24 No. 119 at 18.) The court denied in part the motions for summary 25 judgment filed by the South San Joaquin County Fire Authority and 26 Randall Bradley, leaving all claims but the procedural process 27 claim for trial. (See id.) The City now requests that the court 28 enter final judgment in its favor. (Docket No. 121.) 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that 2 “[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . 3 or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry 4 of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims 5 or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is 6 no just reason for delay.” 7 The factors that may inform a court’s determination of 8 whether final judgment should be entered as to fewer than all 9 claims or parties include “whether certification would result in 10 unnecessary appellate review; whether the claims finally 11 adjudicated were separate, distinct, and independent of any other 12 claims; whether review of the adjudicated claims would be mooted 13 by future developments in the case; whether an appellate court 14 would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there 15 were subsequent appeals; and whether delay in payment of the 16 judgment . . . would inflict severe financial harm.” Wood v. GCC 17 Bend, LLC,

, 878 n.2 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Curtiss- 18 Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,

(1980)). 19 “[I]n deciding whether there are no just reasons to 20 delay the appeal of individual final judgments . . ., a district 21 court must take into account judicial administrative interests as 22 well as the equities involved.” Curtiss-Wright,

. 23 “[C]onsideration of judicial administrative interests is 24 necessary to assure that application of the Rule effectively 25 preserves the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.” 26 Wood,

(internal quotation marks omitted). 27 Accordingly, Rule 54(b) judgments should be limited to the 28 “unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the eee nee NE EE I OIE EEE ONE EO

1 number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket 2 are outbalanced by pressing needs of litigants for an early and 3 separate judgment as to some of the claims of the parties.” 4 Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. J.D. Archer,

(9th 5 | Cir. 1981). 6 While the court did reach a final determination of the 7 claims against the City on which it granted summary judgment, the 8 City has not established that entry of final judgment is 9 | warranted at this stage. First, the City has provided no 10 argument suggesting that it has a pressing need for an early and 11 separate judgment. Second, given the similar factual issues 12 involved in the claims against all defendants -- particularly the 13 role Bradley played in the allegedly retaliatory employment 14 actions at issue -- it appears that entering a final judgment as 15 to only the City would create the possibility of duplicative and 16 inefficient appeals. See Wood,

(“[The Ninth 17 Circuit] cannot afford the luxury of reviewing the same set of 18 facts in a routine case more than once without a seriously 19 important reason.”); Morrison-Knudsen,

20 (“similarity of legal or factual issues will weigh heavily 21 against entry of judgment under [Rule 54(b)]”). 22 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the City of Tracy’s 23 request for entry of final judgment at this time (Docket No. 121) 24 be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. 25 Dated: March 13, 2025 tleom ah. A. be—~ 26 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28