Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-01796/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-01796-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

NEIL LEWIS, SHARON LEWIS,

husband and wife, d/b/a S.D.I.C, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

NORMAN MICHAEL MILLER, SHERI

MILLER, husband and wife, J.A.

MILLER and JANE DOE MILLER,

husband and wife; NORMAND

MICHAEL MILLER as TRUSTEE OF

THE QID AND TID TERM OF YEARS

TRUST; TID LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;

QID LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; JOHN

and JANE DOES 1-10; XYZ Corporation

1-10; Black & White partnerships 1-10;

and, L-N limited liability companies 1-10,

Defendants 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-00-1796-PHX-MHM

ORDER

I. DISCUSSION

On September 04, 2009, Plaintiffs Neil Lewis and Sharon Lewis, husband and wife,

filed the instant Motion to Reopen Case Against J.A. Miller. (Dkt. #113). This Court

entered final judgement in this case over six years ago, on June 12, 2002. (Dkt. #112). The

Court entered its judgement pursuant to the settlement reached between Plaintiffs and

Defendants Mike and Sherri Miller, husband and wife (“Miller”). (Dkt. #113, ex.5).

Defendant J.A. Miller was not a party to the settlement agreement. Id.

Case 2:00-cv-01796-MHM Document 115 Filed 10/06/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

In support of their Motion, Plaintiffs cite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b),

arguing it “allows claims to continue against parties that are not part and partial [sic] to a

final judgement.” (Dkt. #113, p.3) In so urging, Plaintiff oversimplifies and misunderstands

the purpose and application of Rule 54(b). As a general rule, piecemeal appeals during a

single litigation are looked upon unfavorably, with appellate courts preferring one appeal at

the conclusion of the lawsuit. STEVEN BAIKER-MCKEE, ET AL., FEDERAL CIVIL RULES

HANDBOOK 1037 (2009). Rule 54(b) carves out an exception to this rule. In a multiclaim

or multiparty action, it allows a district court to enter final judgement as to one claim or

party, certifying it for immediate appeal, “where awaiting a final judgement [as to all claims

or parties] would be unduly harsh or unjust.” Id.; see Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d

873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing the determinations a district court must make when

utilizing Rule 54(b)). 

Having explained what Rule 54(b) is, this Court will now state what it very clearly is

not: a mechanism for reopening a case. In light of this fact, Rule 54(b) does not support

Plaintiffs’ motion. Additionally, the Court did not enter the final judgement in this case

pursuant to Rule 54(b), and Plaintiffs do not allege that it did. And, even if this Court had

entered a Rule 54(b) final judgement, it would not have excused them from pursuing their

claims against J.A. Miller, or any of the other Defendants, especially not for six years. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiffs Motion to Reopen Case Against J.A.

Miller (Dkt. #113).

DATED this 5th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:00-cv-01796-MHM Document 115 Filed 10/06/09 Page 2 of 2