Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01079/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01079-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 - 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Christopher Cook, et ux., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) No. CV-04-1079-PCT-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER

Avi Casino Enterprise, Inc., et al., )

)

Defendants. ) )

On November 7, 2006, defendants Avi Casino Enterprise, Inc., Mejia,

Shaik, Dodd, and Purbaugh ("the tribal defendants") filed a one-sentence Notice

of Lodging of Proposed Form of Judgment (doc. #61), together with a proposed

form of final judgment as to them that contains language invoking Fed.R.Civ.P.

54(b). The underlying basis for the proposed Rule 54(b) judgment is the Court's

orders that dismissed the tribal defendants from this action pursuant to

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court initially notes that the manner in which the tribal defendants are

seeking a Rule 54(b) judgment is improper. While parties may "request" that a

separate judgment be entered, Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(d), such a request involves the

Case 3:04-cv-01079-PGR Document 65 Filed 12/13/06 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

1

 To the extent that the wording of the proposed form of judgment submitted

by the tribal defendants is their attempt to comply with the Morrison-Knudsen

requirements, it is unavailing because the inclusion in the form of judgment of the

Court's prior findings regarding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction violates

Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(a) ("A judgment shall not contain a recital of pleadings, ... or the record

of prior proceedings.")

- 2 -

filing of an appropriate motion that is accompanied by a memorandum of points

and authorities that explains why the request is factually and legally appropriate.

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b)(1) and LRCiv 7.2(b). The requirement for such a motion in

the context of seeking a Rule 54(b) judgment is particularly appropriate because

certification under Rule 54(b) is an extraordinary measure that is not to be

granted as a matter of course, Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446

U.S. 1, 5, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 1466 (1980), and the Ninth Circuit has mandated that

the district courts should not direct entry of a Rule 54(b) judgment unless they

first make specific findings setting forth the reasons for their order. MorrisonKnudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). The effect of the

tribal defendants' failure to properly submit their Rule 54(b) request is that the

Court must expend scarce judicial resources doing their counsels' work for them.1

Notwithstanding the lack of a proper request for a Rule 54(b) judgment, the

Court finds that there is no just reason for delaying the entry of a separate

judgment of dismissal in favor of the tribal defendants. First, a Rule 54(b)

judgment is necessary in order to finally dispose of the claims against the tribal

defendants at this time inasmuch as this case is still ongoing as to defendant

Christensen. Second, the Court has entered a final order (doc. #38) dismissing

all of the claims against defendants Avi Casino Enterprise, Inc., Mejia, and Shaik

for lack of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, and has entered a final order (doc.

Case 3:04-cv-01079-PGR Document 65 Filed 12/13/06 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

2

 The Court notes that it interprets the plaintiffs' comments in the Joint Status

Report (doc. #63) to mean that the plaintiffs do not object to the entry of a Rule 54(b)

judgment. 

- 3 -

#60) dismissing all of the claims against defendants Dodd and Purbaugh

pursuant to the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. Third, since the discrete

subject matter jurisdiction issues underlying the dismissal of the tribal defendants

are not applicable to defendant Christensen, the early entry of a separate

judgment as to the tribal defendants will not require the Ninth Circuit to address

those legal issues again if Christensen subsequently appeals.2

 Therefore,

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

dismissal in favor of defendants Avi Casino Enterprise, Inc., Ian Dodd, Juan

Mejias, Stephanie Shaik, and Debra Purbaugh pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)

inasmuch as all claims against these defendants have been dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction and there is no just reason for delay.

DATED this 12th day of December, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-01079-PGR Document 65 Filed 12/13/06 Page 3 of 3