Tri-Dam v. Frazier ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TRI-DAM, Case No. 1:20-cv-00408-SKO 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO DISMISS REMAINING 11 v. C RL EA QI UM ES S TA N TOD DD EE FN EY RI N EG N TD RE YF E ON FD ANT’S 12 JUDGMENT SCOTT FRAZIER, 13 (Docs. 57, 58, 59) Defendant. 14 _____________________________________/ 15 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiff Tri-Dam (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Scott Frazier 19 (“Defendant”), alleging causes of action for violation of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), 16 U.S.C. 20 § 825p, public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, and interference with express easement. (Doc. 21 1.) On October 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment on its public and 22 private nuisance claims, and Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, 23 partial summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings, on all of Plaintiff’s claims. (Docs. 38, 45.) 24 On January 28, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the 25 public nuisance claim and entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from maintaining 26 his slip dock, personal watercraft ports, and waterslide (“Contested Facilities”) on Tulloch Reservoir 27 28 1 without a permit from Plaintiff.1 (Doc. 55 at 33–34.) As the Court’s ruling on the parties’ cross- 2 motions for summary judgment did not resolve the private nuisance and interference with express 3 easement claims, which essentially seek the same relief as the public nuisance claim on which the 4 Court granted summary judgment, the Court directed the parties file either a notice of settlement, 5 stipulation for dismissal of the action or any remaining claims, or a joint pretrial statement, should 6 they wish to proceed with the matter, by no later than February 2, 2022. 7 On February 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a request to dismiss, without prejudice, its remaining 8 claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), and a proposed judgment. (Docs. 57, 9 58.) On that same date, Defendant filed a request to defer entry of judgment, or alternatively, to 10 enter judgment as proposed by Defendant. (Doc. 59.) On February 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response 11 opposing Defendant’s request. (Doc. 60.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s request to 12 dismiss its remaining claims will be granted, Defendant’s request to defer entry of judgment will be 13 denied, and the Court will enter judgment in accordance with its ruling on the parties’ cross-motions 14 for summary judgment. 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 A. Plaintiff’s Request to Dismiss Remaining Claims Without Prejudice 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides in pertinent part that where a defendant 18 has served an answer or motion for summary judgment, or does not stipulate to a dismissal, “an 19 action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court 20 considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under 21 this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” Id. “The purpose of the rule is to permit a plaintiff to 22 dismiss an action without prejudice so long as the defendant will not be prejudiced, [citation], or 23 unfairly affected by dismissal. [Citations.]” Stevedoring Services of America v. Armilla 24 International B. V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989). 25 The decision to grant or deny a motion pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is “within the sound 26 discretion of the trial court and may be reviewed only for abuse of that discretion.” Phillips v. 27 1 The Court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiff’s first cause of action for violation 28 of the Federal Power Act, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulations, and the Shoreline Management Plan, 1 Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, 874 F.2d 984, 986 (9th Cir. 1989). A court should grant a Rule 2 41(a)(2) motion for voluntary dismissal unless the defendant will “suffer clear legal prejudice, other 3 than the prospect of a subsequent suit on the same facts.” Id. “Legal prejudice” means “prejudice 4 to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United 5 States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996). 6 Here, Defendant does not assert that voluntary dismissal will result in legal prejudice. 7 Indeed, Defendant’s proposed judgment expressly states that “the parties agreed that the remaining 8 claims should be dismissed.” (Doc. 59-1 at 1). Therefore, voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 9 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will not result in “prejudice to some legal interest, 10 some legal claim, some legal argument.” See Westlands Water Dist., 100 F.3d at 96. Accordingly, 11 Plaintiff’s request to dismiss, without prejudice, its remaining claims for private nuisance and 12 interference with express easement will be granted. 13 B. Defendant’s Request to Defer Entry of Judgment 14 Defendant requests that the Court delay the entry of judgment to February 15, 2022–the date 15 by which he intends to file a motion to amend the Court’s order on the parties’ cross-motion for 16 summary judgment (the “Order”) (Doc. 55) pursuant to Rules 52, 59, and 60 of the Federal Rules 17 of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 59 at 1-3.) It is unclear, however, why entry of judgment would need to 18 be deferred for Defendant to file such a motion. In fact, the Order constitutes an interlocutory order, 19 see Williamson v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America, 160 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that, 20 barring special circumstances, orders granting partial summary judgment are not appealable final 21 orders), and a motion to reconsider or amend pursuant to Rules 59 and 60 would not be appropriate 22 until final judgment has been entered.2 See United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048 n.8 (9th 23 24 2 A motion to reconsider or amend an order granting partial summary judgment is more appropriately considered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (“any order or other decision, however designated, 25 that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the 26 claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.”); Frontier Fed. Sav. & Loan v. United States, No. C–89–251–AAM, 1992 WL 155444, at *1 (E.D. Wash. Apr. 6, 1992) (“[T]he analytical starting point for the reconsideration (or possible 27 reconsideration) of an order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment (or partial summary judgment) is Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).”). In any event, the standards of review for motions under Rules 54 and 59 are the same. See Lal v. 28 Felker, No. 2:07–CV–2060–KJM–EFB, 2014 WL 3362353 (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2014) (“Courts rely on Rule 59 cases 1 Cir. 2000) (“Rule 60(b) . . . applies only to motions attacking final, appealable orders.”); Sch. Dist. 2 No. 5 v. Lundgren, 259 F.2d 101, 104 (9th Cir. 1958) (Rule 60(b) “applies only to judgments, orders, 3 or proceedings which are ‘final.’”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (allowing motions “to alter or amend a 4 judgment”). Defendant’s request to defer entry of judgment will therefore be denied.3 5 C. The Parties’ Proposed Judgments 6 The parties have submitted competing proposed judgments for the Court’s consideration. 7 (Docs. 58, 59.) In granting partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s public nuisance claim and 8 issuing an abatement injunction, the Court ordered: 9 Within thirty (30) days of this order, Defendant shall apply for encroachment permits from Plaintiff for each of the Contested Facilities. Each of the Contested Facilities 10 may be maintained on the Tulloch Reservoir only if Plaintiff approves the relevant permit application. Otherwise, the Contested Facilities must be removed by no later 11 than the later of: (1) 15 days after the date of denial of Defendant’s permit application(s), or (2) if no application(s) are submitted within 21 days, 30 days after 12 issuance of this order. 13 (Doc. 55 at 33–34.) Plaintiff’s proposed judgment is materially consistent with the Court’s Order. 14 (See Doc. 58.) Defendant’s proposed judgment, however, seeks to modify the time-frame for 15 removal of the Contested Facilities and includes language allowing Defendant to challenge any 16 denial of his permit applications by Plaintiff in this Court. (See Doc. 59-1.) 17 The Court observes that Defendant’s proposed judgment is, in essence, a motion to amend 18 the Order, but such a motion has not been properly brought before the Court. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 19 230. Accordingly, Defendant’s request for the Court to incorporate his proposed changes in the 20 judgment entered will be denied without prejudice, and the Court will enter judgment in accordance 21 with the prior ruling in the Order. Defendant has indicated that he intends to file a motion to amend 22 the judgment pursuant to Rules 59 and 60. In that motion, he may reassert his contentions as to why 23 the injunction previously granted should be modified.4 See, e.g, GCIU-Emp. Ret. Fund v. 24 3 Pursuant to Rule 59(e), Defendant will have 28 days from the date of entry of judgment to move the Court to alter or 25 amend the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 4 Should Defendant move to amend the judgment to incorporate the language in his proposed judgment, the motion 26 should address, identifying specific legal authority, (1) why, in the event Plaintiff denies Defendant’s permit application(s), Defendant should be permitted to directly file a motion with this Court seeking review of the denials, 27 rather than filing a new case, considering that all claims in this case will have been resolved and the matter closed, and that the adjudication of any denial will involve the consideration of an entirely new set of facts; and (2) the basis for a 28 federal court’s authority and jurisdiction to review any such denial, given that Defendant has acknowledged that he has 1 Quad/Graphics, Inc., No. 2:16–CV–03391–ODW (AFMx), 2017 WL 3251389, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2 July 31, 2017) (where one party requested a provision regarding prejudgment and postjudgment 3 interest in its proposed judgment, the district court “entered judgment without any interest and 4 instructed the [party] to move to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) if it believed it was entitled 5 to such.”). 6 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 7 Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 8 1. Plaintiff’s request to dismiss, without prejudice, its remaining claims for private 9 nuisance and interference with express easement (Doc. 57) is GRANTED; 10 2. Defendant’s request to defer entry of judgment (Doc. 59) is DENIED; and 11 3. Judgment will be entered by separate order. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: February 8, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28