Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00455/USCOURTS-azd-4_18-cv-00455-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rose Ann Karam,

Plaintiff,

v. 

University of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00455-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

On January 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal in the Ninth 

Circuit. (Doc. 142.) Plaintiff attempts to appeal the Court’s dismissal of Defendants 

Southern Arizona Veterans Administration Health Care; United States Air Force, DavisMonthan Air Force Base; Genoa Healthcare; Banner University Medical Center; and the 

partial dismissal of the Arizona Board of Regents. See id. 

The Ninth Circuit may review an appeal of a final order, but the order must dispose 

of all defendants. See Munoz v. Small Bus. Admin., 644 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir. 1981);

see also Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Under 

federal law, . . . dismissal [pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)] as to only one of several 

defendants is appealable when, . . . it has merged into the final judgment). This is true even 

when a court grants partial summary judgment in a plaintiff’s favor; the partial summary 

judgment order may only be appealed after there is a final order granting summary 

judgment for the defendant. See Interstate Prod. Credit Assoc. v. Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co., 

944 F.2d 536, 538 n.1 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A]n appeal from a final judgment draws in 

Case 4:18-cv-00455-RCC Document 143 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

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

question all earlier, non-final orders and rulings which produced the judgment.”). “An 

attempt to appeal a nonfinal decision of a district court remains just that, an attempt; it is a 

nullity and does not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction.” Century Laminating, Ltd. v. 

Montgomery, 595 F.2d 563, 567 (10th Cir. 1979). Moreover, an “application for an appeal 

. . . shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of 

Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). It is within the district 

court’s discretion whether to allow an appeal from an order that does not dispose of all the 

claims and parties, or whether denying an appeal is appropriate to “preserve the historic 

federal policy against piecemeal appeals.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 

U.S. 1, 8 (1980).

Not all Defendants were dismissed on summary judgment. Because there is no final 

order disposing of all Defendants, an appeal to the Ninth Circuit is premature. Furthermore, 

any advantage to permitting an interlocutory appeal under Rule 54(b) is not outweighed by 

the interest in preventing piecemeal appeals. Therefore, the Court refuses to direct an entry 

of final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to the dismissed parties 

and claims, and the Notice of Appeal has no effect on the District Court’s jurisdiction or 

the progress of this case. The parties are still required to continue litigating this matter in 

this Court, meet deadlines, and respond to any filed motions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 22nd day of January, 2020.

Case 4:18-cv-00455-RCC Document 143 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 2