Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01879/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01879-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

James Dwight Hunley, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Orbital Sciences Corporation; Richard

Mark Haynie; Louis M. Amorosi and

Gina M. Amorosi; Richard L. Fahrner

and Janet R. Fahrner; Ronald J. Grabe

and Lynn O’Keefe-Grabe; Mark J. Ogren

and Cindy L. Ogren; Satya Prasad

Maganty and Sowbhagya L. Maganty;

Brian T. Mullet and Lisa E. Mullet;

Michael G. Sims and Patricia C.

Treharne; Richard S. Straka and Purna R.

Straka; Craig N. Stuart and Susan K.

Wyman; and Charles M. Whitmeyer and

Sandra L. Whitmeyer,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-1879-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants have filed a motion for entry of partial final judgment pursuant to

Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #81. Plaintiff has filed a response

and Defendants have filed a reply. Dkt. ##85, 87. For the reasons set forth below, the Court

will deny the motion.

I. Background.

Defendant Orbital Sciences Corporation (“Orbital”) develops, manufactures, and

operates satellite launch vehicles and related space systems. Orbital hired Plaintiff in 1996

Case 2:05-cv-01879-DGC Document 95 Filed 12/08/06 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

1

Rule 54(b), provides, in pertinent 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 a 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 dely and upon an express

direction for the entry of judgment.

- 2 -

as an engineer and technical staff member. The individual Defendants are Plaintiff’s

managers and their spouses.

The operative complaint in this case purports to allege six claims for relief against

various Defendants: violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, violation of the False

Claim Act, defamation of character, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent

infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. Dkt. #65. On August 23, 2006, the

Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the

complaint for failure to a claim for relief. Dkt. #72. Based on that order, the only claims

remaining in the case are the statutory claims against Defendant Orbital.

II. Discussion.

Defendants move for entry of final judgment on all of the dismissed claims pursuant

to Rule 54(b).1

 Defendants contend that the individual Defendants should not be subject to

the personal inconvenience of monitoring the case or the stigma of pending litigation in the

public records. Defendants note that pending litigation causes stress for the individual

Defendants and can create an obstacle when applying for jobs or loans that require

background checks. Dkt. #81. Plaintiff argues that entry of partial final judgment at this

time would place the heavy burden on him of having to both file an appeal and litigate the

remaining claims in this Court. Dkt. #85.

Having carefully considered the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, the Court finds

that entry of partial final judgment is not appropriate at this time. None of the individual

Defendants claim that they have actually applied for a job or a loan requiring a background

check. Moreover, the public record in this case clearly shows that the individual Defendants

have been dismissed. See Dkt. #72. Finally, the Court concludes that some of the dismissed

Case 2:05-cv-01879-DGC Document 95 Filed 12/08/06 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 -

claims involve factual issues similar to those raised by the remaining claims. In short, this

case is typical of cases in which all individual defendants have been dismissed and only a

corporate defendant remains. The Court thus concludes that granting the “Rule 54(b) request

does not comport with the interests of sound judicial administration.” Wood v. GCC Bend,

L.L.C., 422 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 2005); see Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co., 59 F.3d

942, 951 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that the bankruptcy court erred in entering partial final

judgment under Rule 54(b) and warning against “[t]he dangers of profligate Rule 54(b)

determinations”); Frank Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th

Cir. 1985) (“‘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 the pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate

judgment as to some claims or parties. . . . A similarity of legal or factual issues will weigh

heavily against entry of judgment under the rule, and in such cases a Rule 54(b) order will

be proper only where necessary to avoid a harsh and unjust result[.]’”) (quoting MorrisonKnudsen Co. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981)).

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Rule 54(b) motion (Dkt. #81) is denied.

DATED this 8th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01879-DGC Document 95 Filed 12/08/06 Page 3 of 3