Karam v. University of Arizona ( 2020 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Rose Ann Karam, No. CV-18-00455-TUC-RCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 University of Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On January 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal in the Ninth 16 Circuit. (Doc. 142.) Plaintiff attempts to appeal the Court’s dismissal of Defendants 17 Southern Arizona Veterans Administration Health Care; United States Air Force, Davis- 18 Monthan Air Force Base; Genoa Healthcare; Banner University Medical Center; and the 19 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 21 of all defendants. See Munoz v. Small Bus. Admin., 644 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir. 1981); 22 see also Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Under 23 federal law, . . . dismissal [pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)] as to only one of several 24 defendants is appealable when, . . . it has merged into the final judgment). This is true even 25 when a court grants partial summary judgment in a plaintiff’s favor; the partial summary 26 judgment order may only be appealed after there is a final order granting summary 27 judgment for the defendant. See Interstate Prod. Credit Assoc. v. Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co., 28 944 F.2d 536, 538 n.1 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A]n appeal from a final judgment draws in 1 || 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 8 || 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, 13 || 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 15 || 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 17 || the progress of this case. The parties are still required to continue litigating this matter in 18 || this Court, meet deadlines, and respond to any filed motions. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated this 22nd day of January, 2020. 21 22 4] 23 Lb pL tK~ Cub 24 Honorable Raner ©. Collins 25 senior United States District Judge 26 27 28 _2-