Pringle v. Cardall ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 PAMELA DENISE PRINGLE, No. 2:18-cv-02035 WBS KJN 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RE: MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF RULING AS 15 BRENT CARDALL, COUNTY OF YOLO, FINAL JUDGMENT YOLO COUNTY PROBATION 16 DEPARTMENT, ANTHONY PENNELLA, SANDY JONES, JUDY MESICK, NOEL 17 BARLOW-HUST, CINDY McDONALD, MARK ALAN KUBINSKI, ELISA SUE 18 MAGNUSON, JOHN DOES 1-20, and JANE DOES 1-20, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 ----oo0oo---- 22 Plaintiff Pamela Denise Pringle sued both Idaho and 23 California defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting violation 24 of her civil rights while serving her prison sentence in Idaho 25 and upon her release. (First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) (Docket No. 7).) 26 Defendants Sandy Jones, Amanda Gentry, Noel Barlow-Hust, Judy 27 Mesick, Cindy McDonald, Mark Alan Kubinski, and Elisa Sue 28 1 Magnuson (collectively “Idaho defendants”) moved to dismiss for 2 lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue on August 28, 3 2019. (Mot. to Dismiss (Docket No. 53).) This court granted the 4 Idaho defendants’ motion to dismiss on August 28, 2019. (Docket 5 No. 85.) Before the court is plaintiff’s motion to certify the 6 August 28 order as a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 7 Procedure 54(b). (Docket No. 86.) 8 “Rule 54(b) permits district courts to authorize 9 immediate appeal of dispositive rulings on separate claims in a 10 civil action raising multiple claims.” Gelboim v. Bank of Am. 11 Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897, 902 (2015). A district court may enter 12 final judgment “as to one or more but fewer than all of the 13 claims” after “an express determination that there is no just 14 reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of 15 judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 16 A final judgment is “an ultimate disposition of an 17 individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims 18 action.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 19 (1980) (citations and quotations omitted). Here, the order 20 dismissing the Idaho defendants from this action disposed of 21 plaintiff’s claims against the Idaho defendants while other 22 claims remain in the action. Accordingly, the order dismissing 23 the Idaho defendants satisfies Rule 54(b)’s finality requirement. 24 After establishing finality, a district court will then 25 consider whether there is any “just reason for delay” by 26 assessing equitable factors, such as prejudice and delay, and 27 whether reviewing the certified claims without the remaining 28 claims would subject the case to piecemeal review. Curtiss- eee eee I EE EE OS ON OS OD 1 | Wright, 446 U.S. at 8-10. Permitting the plaintiffs to appeal 2 this court’s order dismissing the Idaho defendants could advance 3 the ultimate termination of this litigation and avoid protracted and expensive litigation. Conversely, the dismissed Idaho 5 | defendants and plaintiff alike could be prejudiced by waiting for 6 | the conclusion of this case before answering the complaint 7 | through loss of witnesses or evidence. Additionally, the 8 jurisdictional claim is “easily severable from the merits of the 9 lawsuit” and deciding the issue now would “serve the efficient 10 administration of justice.” Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indus. AB, 11 11 F.3d 1482, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the court finds 12 | no just reason for delay and it will grant plaintiff’s Rule 54(b) 13 || motion. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for 15 Certification of Order as Final Judgment under Rule 54(b) (Docket 16 No. 86), be, and the same thereby is, GRANTED. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s Order Re: Motion 18 to Dismiss and Venue (Docket No. 85) shall be, and the same 19 thereby is, entered as a final judgment against the Idaho 20 | defendants in this matter. 21 AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is STAYED 22 | pending such appeal. 23 Dated: November 25, 2019 24 nthblbadmr A jbdiPean WILLIAM B. SHUBB 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28