Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01804/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-01804-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

1

 As to the federal constitutional claims, it was only against the Bullhead Defendants

that such claims were asserted, therefore those claims are necessarily separable. Thus, there

is no just reason for delay for the entry of a final judgment as to the federal claims against

the Bullhead Defendants.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tamara Sue DeBinder, et al. ) No. CV 06-1804-PCT-PGR

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. ) ORDER

)

)

Albertson’s, Inc.,dba Sav-On ) 

Drugs, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________)

Currently before the Court is Defendants Clevinger, Vaughan, and City of Bullhead

City’s (collectively the “Bullhead Defendants”) Motion for Rule 54(b) Entry of Judgment.

(Doc. 118.) On March 25, 2008, the Court granted the Bullhead Defendants’ Motion for

Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims (Doc. 60) and granted the

Bullhead Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss state law claims (Doc. 62), thereby disposing of all

pending claims against the Bullhead Defendants in their favor.

The state law1

 claims against the Bullhead Defendants were resolved as a result of the

state statute requiring that Plaintiff serve upon each Bullhead Defendant an effective notice

Case 3:06-cv-01804-PGR Document 120 Filed 11/12/08 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

- 2 -

of claim. None of the remaining Defendants have any related issues. Rule 54(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

When an action presents more than one claim for relief — whether as a claim,

counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim — or when multiple parties are

involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but

fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that

there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision,

however designated, 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 claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.

(Emphasis added).

It is undisputed that the dismissal of the Bullhead Defendants is a decision that

constitutes the “disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims

action.” Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. General Electric Company, 446 U.S. 1, 7

(1980)(quoting, in part, Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436 (1955). In the

event that the Court finds that its Orders of March 25, 2008, resolving the claims against the

Bullhead Defendants was final, and there is no cause for just delay, the Court may enter Rule

54(b) judgment. Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 7-8; Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). 

The Curtiss-Wright Court set forth two factors to consider when determining whether

to enter Rule 54(b) judgment: (1) whether the claims under review are separable from other

claims remaining in the case that have yet to be adjudicated, and (2) whether the nature of

the claim already determined was such that no appellate court would be at risk of having to

decide the same issue(s) more than once, if a subsequent appeal is filed. Curtiss-Wright, 446

U.S. at 8; AmerisourceBergin Corp. V. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir.

2006). It is clear from the Court’s March 25, 2008 Order of dismissal, that the claims under

review are separable from the claims remaining in the case. The claims against the Bullhead

Defendants were dismissed based on the Arizona notice of claim statute. Under applicable

Arizona law, “[b]efore initiating an action for damages against a public entity, a claimant

must provide a notice of claim to the entity in compliance with the Arizona Revised Statutes

Case 3:06-cv-01804-PGR Document 120 Filed 11/12/08 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

- 3 -

section 12-821.01.” Deer Valley Unified School District No. 97 v. Houser, 152 P.3d 490, 491

(Ariz. 2007). A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) states in pertinent part: 

Persons who have claims against a public entity or a public employee shall file

claims with the person or persons authorized to accept service for the public

entity or public employee as set forth in the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure

within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues.

Failure to comply with the statute bars a plaintiff from pursuing the underlying cause

of action. Id.; see Salerno v. Espinoza, 115 P.3d 626, 627-28 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005)

(compliance with the notice of claim statute is mandatory and essential to maintaining an

action against a public employee); Crum v. Superior Court, 922 P.2d 1097, 1101 (Ariz. Ct.

App. 1996); State v. Barnum, 118 P.2d 1097, 1101 (Ariz. 1941)(state cannot be sued except

upon its own terms and conditions). The aforementioned statute is not applicable to the

remaining Defendants as they are neither public entities nor public employees. Therefore,

the state claims previously dismissed against the Bullhead Defendants, all of which were

based on the notice of claim statute, are unequivocally separable from the claims remaining

in the case. 

Furthermore, the state law claims against the Bullhead Defendants were dismissed

based on a state statute inapplicable to the remaining Defendants, and the federal claims were

asserted solely against the Bullhead Defendants. Consequently, there is no risk that the Court

of Appeals will have to decide the same issue more than once, should the Court enter final

judgment as to the claims previously dismissed against the Bullhead Defendants, and an

appeal is taken. Therefore, the Court finds no just reason for delaying the entry of final

judgment as to the Bullhead Defendants.

Accordingly, the Court will now enter final judgment as to the Bullhead Defendants,

as the claims are distinct and separable from the claims against the remaining Defendants and

there is no just reason for delay. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED GRANTING the Bullhead Defendants’ Motion for Rule

54(b) Entry of Judgment. (Doc. 118.)

Case 3:06-cv-01804-PGR Document 120 Filed 11/12/08 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment

accordingly. 

DATED this 12th day of November, 2008.

Case 3:06-cv-01804-PGR Document 120 Filed 11/12/08 Page 4 of 4