Martinez v. City of Clovis ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Desiree Martinez, No. 1:15-cv-00683-KJM-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Kyle Pennington, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 As part of her nine-count complaint against ten defendants, plaintiff Desiree Martinez sued 18 | Officer Channon High under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 44. Plaintiff 19 | alleged Officer High violated her substantive due process rights when Officer High told plaintiffs 20 | alleged domestic abuser, defendant Kyle Pennington, about plaintiffs confidential call to the Clovis 21 | Police Department. See id. § 30. On January 10, 2022, the previously-assigned district judge 22 | granted summary judgment for Officer High on plaintiffs substantive due process claim, finding 23 | Officer High is entitled to qualified immunity.! See generally Order, ECF No. 210. Plaintiff now 24 | asks the court to certify the order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) so she can 25 | immediately appeal. See ECF No. 222. The motion is unopposed. See ECF No. 225. 26 | ///// ' This case was reassigned to this court on April 27, 2022. See ECF No. 224. 1 Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outlines the process for entering a final 2 judgment where, as here, the court has disposed of some but not all claims in a case or the claims 3 against some but not all defendants. Courts undertake a two-step analysis to determine whether a 4 partial final judgment may properly be certified under Rule 54(b). First, the court must determine 5 that its final judgment is, in fact, both “final” and a “judgment.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. 6 Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). That is, the court’s decision must be “‘final’ in the sense that it is ‘an 7 ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action,’” and 8 a “‘judgment’ in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief.” Id. (citing Sears, 9 Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436 (1956)). Second, having found that the decision was 10 a final judgment, the court must then determine there is no “just reason for delay” in certifying it 11 as final and immediately appealable. Id. at 8. This inquiry is required because “[n]ot all final 12 judgments on individual claims should be immediately appealable.” Id. The district court must act 13 as a selective “dispatcher” and consider “judicial administrative interests”—including “‘the historic 14 federal policy against piecemeal appeals’”—and “the equities involved.” Id. (quoting Sears, 15 Roebuck & Co., 351 U.S. at 438). 16 Here, the court finds Rule 54(b) certification is warranted. The prior judge’s summary 17 judgment order finally disposed of plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against Officer High. See Order; 18 Judgment, ECF No. 211; see also Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 7 (defining finality). Defendant 19 has not raised, nor has the court found, any just reason to delay certification as to this claim. To 20 the contrary, the adjudicated claim is “separable from the others and . . . the nature of the claim 21 [is] such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once.” Wood v. 22 GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 878 n.2 (9th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff’s now-adjudicated claim 23 against Officer High was her last remaining federal civil rights claim. It also was her last 24 remaining claim against Officer High or any other defendant besides Kyle Pennington and his 25 parents. Although there is some factual overlap between this claim and plaintiff’s remaining 26 claims against the Pennington defendants, those claims—domestic abuse-centered state-law 27 claims such as battery, gender violence, conspiracy to commit battery—rest on different legal 28 theories asserted against different defendants. See Am. Pretrial Order at 2–4 (describing 1 “disputed factual issues”). Rule 54(b) was adopted “to avoid the possible injustice of delaying 2 judgment on a distinctly separate claim pending adjudication of the entire case.” Gelboim v. Bank 3 of Am. Corp., 574 U.S. 405, 409 (2015) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). 4 The court grants plaintiff’s unopposed request for certification. Cf. Est. of Strickland v. 5 Nevada Cnty., No. 21-cv-00175, 2022 WL 1524604, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2022). The 6 summary judgment ruling, ECF No. 210, is certified under Rule 54(b). Based on the parties’ 7 agreement, the case is stayed pending resolution of plaintiff’s appeal. 8 This order resolves ECF No. 222. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: August 26, 2022. 11