Valdez v. County of Kings ( 2019 )

2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MICHAEL VALDEZ, 1:17-CV-00430-LJO-SAB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: REQUEST FOR ENTRY 8 OF JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANTS v. DALE WILLIAMS AND PATRICK 9 JURDON HANFORD POLICE OFFICER LARRY 10 LEEDS, in his individual capacity; et al., 11 Defendants. (ECF No. 129) 12 13 14 On October 10, 2019, a proposed order for judgment was submitted by Dale Williams and 15 Patrick Jurdon, who were named as defendants in this case. See ECF No. 77. As summary judgment has 16 already been granted in favor of Defendants Jurdon and Williams, those defendants have been 17 terminated. ECF No. 120. Accordingly, the recently filed proposed order appears to be a request for 18 entry of separate judgment as to those defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). 19 However, concerns about judicial economy counsel that Rule 54(b) should be used sparingly. See 20 Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 10 ((1980) (“Plainly, sound judicial administration 21 does not require that Rule 54(b) requests be granted routinely.”); Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Archer, 655 22 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981) (directing that Rule 54(b) be “reserved for the unusual case in which the 23 costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are 24 outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some claims or 25 parties”). Because an expedited appeal is an exception rather than the rule, the court should not enter 2 circumstances.” Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 655 F.2d at 966. Accordingly, the request for entry of 3 separate judgment is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its renewal accompanied by an appropriate 4 showing. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: October 18, 2019 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25