Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03006/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03006-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF ERLINDA URSUA,

LORENZO URSUA, individually

and as Executor for the

ESTATE OF ERLINDA URSUA,

ROXANNE BAUTISTA and RHODORA

URSUA,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ALAMEDA COUNTY MEDICAL

CENTER, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-3006 BZ

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO 

F.R.C.P. 54(b)

The motions of defendants Alameda County and Alameda

County Medical Center for entry of judgment pursuant to Rule

54(b) are DENIED for the following reasons:

1. This is not a case in which judicial efficiency will

be advanced by piecemeal appeals. Plaintiffs' claims against

all of the defendants arise out of the same event, and the

nature of the claims is such that an appellate court is likely

to have to consider many of the same facts and issues if there

are multiple appeals. See Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General

Case 3:04-cv-03006-BZ Document 173 Filed 02/14/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980). See also Briscoe v.

Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir. 1985)

(order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) proper only where necessary

to avoid a harsh and unjust result). 

2. The prejudice to the plaintiffs in having to

prosecute appeals from the court's summary judgment in favor

of the moving defendants at the same time that the plaintiffs

are preparing for trial against the remaining defendant

outweighs the possible prejudice to the moving defendants if

there is no early appeal. See Briscoe, supra, 776 F.2d at

1416 (“Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be reserved for the

unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the

number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket

are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an

early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.”) 

It is not clear to the court why moving defendants must

participate as heavily in the upcoming trial as they assert. 

If the remaining issues are as separable from the issues

involving these defendants as they assert in their motions,

their participation in the remaining pretrial and trial should

be minimal. While it is likely that their employees will be

called as witnesses during the trial, that likelihood would

not be reduced were plaintiffs required to appeal now. 

3. Considering all the factors discussed in the parties'

papers, the court concludes that entry of final judgment now

as to these defendants would not “advance the interests of

sound judicial administration and justice to the litigants.” 

Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 5. Therefore, Alameda County’s

Case 3:04-cv-03006-BZ Document 173 Filed 02/14/06 Page 2 of 3
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

and Alameda County Medical Center’s motions for judgment are

DENIED.

Dated: February 14, 2006

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\ESTATE OF URSUA\DENY MOTS.FOR JUDGMT.ORDER.wpd

Case 3:04-cv-03006-BZ Document 173 Filed 02/14/06 Page 3 of 3