Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00909/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00909-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

28 1

 All further references to a “Rule” are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

AMY McCONNELL and AMY

McCONNELL on behalf of her

four minor children, A.B.,

A.B. J.M. and J.M.,

NO. CIV. S-05-0909 FCD DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LASSEN COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo---- 

This matter comes before the court on defendant Loel

Griffith’s (“Griffith”) motion for entry of final judgment

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).1

 Plaintiffs

Case 2:05-cv-00909-MCE-DAD Document 198 Filed 09/06/07 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

28

2 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(n).

2

oppose the motion. For the reasons set forth below,2 defendant

Griffith’s motion is DENIED.

Rule 54(b) provides, in relevant part, 

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an

action . . . or when multiple parties are involved, the

court may direct the entry of final judgment as to one

or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties

only upon an express determination that there is no

just reason for delay and upon an express direction for

the entry of judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b) (West 2007). In short, “claims must be

multiple and at least one must have been adjudicated finally.” 

Cont’l Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 819 F.2d

1519, 1524 (9th Cir. 1987). “Whether a final decision is ready

for appeal is a different inquiry from the equities involved, for

consideration of judicial administration interests ‘is necessary

to assure that application of the Rule effectively preserves the

historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.’” Wood v. GCC

Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CurtissWright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 10 (1980) (internal

quotations omitted)). Both the Supreme Court and the Ninth

Circuit have noted that “sound judicial administration does not

require that Rule 54(b) requests be granted routinely.” CurtissWright, 446 U.S. at 10 (1980); Wood, 422 F.3d at 879. 

Defendant Griffith contends that final judgment should be

entered because all of plaintiffs’ claims against her have been

dismissed after the court’s June 29, 2007 Memorandum and Order

analyzing defendants’ summary judgment motions. Defendant also

Case 2:05-cv-00909-MCE-DAD Document 198 Filed 09/06/07 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

28

3

contends that the factual allegations against Griffith are

separate and distinct from the allegations against the other

defendants. While plaintiffs do not dispute that all claims

against Griffith have been dismissed, plaintiffs contend that

their claims against all defendants are based upon the same core

of operative facts and thus, the case more appropriately lends

itself to one appeal. 

Although this case has been extensively briefed, this is not

a uniquely complicated case. As such, granting defendant

Griffith’s Rule 54(b) request does not comport with the interests

of sound judicial administration. See Wood, 422 F.3d at 879

(reversing the district court’s Rule 54(b) certification in a

“routine” employment discrimination case). Moreover, while the

specific facts relating to plaintiffs’ claims against defendant

Griffith may differ from the specific facts relating to the other

named defendants, all of plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the

detention of the minor children, the removal of the children from

their mother’s custody, the placement of the children in the Coy

home, and the abuse suffered by at least one of the minor

children at the Coy home. As such, there is a common core of

facts that are relevant to all of plaintiffs’ claims against all

defendants such that a piecemeal appeal is not justified in this

case.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00909-MCE-DAD Document 198 Filed 09/06/07 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

28

4

Therefore, defendant Griffith’s motion for final judgment

pursuant to Rule 54(b) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2007 

Case 2:05-cv-00909-MCE-DAD Document 198 Filed 09/06/07 Page 4 of 4