Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01632/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01632-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

Leanna Smith, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Barrow Neurological Institute of St.

Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, et

al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-01632-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us Banner Health System and Scott Elton, M.D.'s ("Banner

defendants") motion for Rule 54(b) certification and notice of lodging proposed final

judgment (doc. 241), plaintiff's response (doc. 247), and defendants' reply (doc. 257). 

Rule 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that when more than one claim for relief is

presented in an action, or when multiple parties are involved, the district court may enter

final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties "only if the court

expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay." "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." Frank

Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir. 1985); see also

Gausvik v. Perez, 392 F.3d 1006, 1009, n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) ("Rule 54(b) should be used

Case 2:10-cv-01632-FJM Document 275 Filed 10/10/12 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 -

sparingly"). A similarity of legal or factual issues weighs heavily against entry of judgment

under Rule 54(b), and in such cases certification is proper "only where necessary to avoid

a harsh and unjust result." Frank Briscoe, 776 F.2d at 1416. When faced with a request for

Rule 54(b) certification, the court should first determine whether it has rendered a final

judgment and then, if it has, determine whether there is any just reason for delay. Wood v.

GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 877-78 (9th Cir. 2005). The second step takes into account

the interests of sound judicial administration and the equities of the parties. Curtiss-Wright

Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8, 100 S. Ct. 1460, 1465 (1980). The order granting

summary judgment to the Banner defendants on all claims asserted against them is a final

judgment on the merits. Wood, 422 F.3d at 879. As a result, we move to step two.

The facts underlying the claims asserted against the Banner defendants and the

remaining defendants are the same. Banner defendants admit that the legal theories relevant

to plaintiff's remaining claims are the same as those addressed in our order granting them

summary judgment (doc. 241 at 2). The appellate court would have to decide the same issues

more than once if piecemeal appeals were allowed. Appellate resolution of the claims at

issue would likely not facilitate settlement of the remaining claims. 

The remaining claims are not complex. Thus, there will not be a long delay before

their resolution through summary judgment or trial. Banner defendants argue that they

should not be required to wait to seek fees and costs, but they do not contend (and there is

no evidence to support a contention) that a delay will prejudice them because of a threat of

insolvency, lost interest, or the like. Cf. Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 6, 100 S. Ct. at 1464.

Although the facts of this case are unique and frequent motions have complicated the

docket, the case itself is not complicated. The interests of judicial administration counsel

against certifying claims where, as here, "the facts on all claims and issues entirely overlap,

and successive appeals are essentially inevitable." Wood, 422 F.3d at 883. 

...

...

Case 2:10-cv-01632-FJM Document 275 Filed 10/10/12 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 -

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Banner defendants' motion for Rule 54(b) certification

(doc. 241). 

DATED this 10th day of October, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-01632-FJM Document 275 Filed 10/10/12 Page 3 of 3