Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02045/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02045-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

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

In re:

Michael Keith Schugg, dba Schuburg

Holsteins, 

Debtor. _________________________________

In re: 

Debra Schugg,

Debtor. _________________________________

G. Grant Lyon, in his capacity as Chapter

11 Trustee of the bankruptcy estate of

Michael Keith Schugg and Debra Schugg;

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Gila River Indian Community, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2045-PHX-JAT

ORDER

BK No. 2-04-13226-PHX-GBN

BK No. 2-04-19091-PHX-GBN

ADV. No. 2-05-ap-00384-GBN

Pending before the Court is Gila River Indian Community's Motion for Rule 54

Certification of Partial Summary Judgment and For a Stay of the Remaining Claims Pending

Appeal (Doc. # 188). The Gila River Indian Community ("GRIC") moves the Court to

certify as immediately appealable the May 24, 2007, partial summary judgment on aboriginal

title. GRIC also requests that the Court stay the remaining claims pending the appeal. 

Case 2:05-cv-02045-JAT Document 195 Filed 08/01/07 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 -

In the May 24, 2007, Order, the Court held that GRIC's aboriginal title to Section 16

was extinguished. In addition, the Court concluded that the remaining claims of legal right

of access to Section 16, zoning authority over Section 16 and trespass were not ripe for

summary adjudication. The remaining claims are set for a bench trial on September 11,

2007.

Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action,

whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party

claim, 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 delay and upon an

express direction for the entry of judgment.

As the Supreme Court instructs:

A district court must first determine that it is dealing with a

"final judgment." It must be a "judgment" in the sense that it is

a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must be

"final" in the sense that it is "an ultimate disposition of an

individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims

action."

Once having found finality, the district court must go on to

determine whether there is any just reason for delay. Not all

final judgments on individual claims should be immediately

appealable, even if they are in some sense separable from the

remaining unresolved claims. The function of the district court

under the Rule is to act as a "dispatcher." It is left to the sound

judicial discretion of the district court to determine the

"appropriate time" when each final decision in a multiple claims

action is ready for appeal. This discretion is to be exercised "in

the interest of sound judicial administration."

Thus, in deciding whether there are no just reasons to delay the

appeal of individual final judgments . . . a district court must

take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the

equities involved. Consideration of the former is necessary to

assure that application of the Rule effectively "preserves the

historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals."

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1980) (citations omitted). 

While the May 24, 2007, partial summary judgment may be a final judgment as

contemplated by Rule 54(b), the Court finds that GRIC has failed to show there is no just

reason for delaying an appeal of the aboriginal title decision. GRIC argues that a denial of

Case 2:05-cv-02045-JAT Document 195 Filed 08/01/07 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 -

the Rule 54(b) certification, and the progression of the trial on the remaining claims, risks

the expense of a second trial if the Ninth Circuit reverses and remands on the aboriginal title

issue. The Court finds that such a risk does not outweigh the interest in the timely resolution

of the remaining claims and the avoidance of piecemeal appeals. Trial of the remaining

claims is less than two months away. A stay thereof will delay resolution of the remaining

claims by years and, by the mere passage of time alone, will increase the complexity and

expense of litigating the remaining claims at the trial court level. Further, granting

certification will create two separate appeal tracks and will increase the complexity and

expense of this litigation at the appellate level. Instead of certifying as immediately

appealable the May 23, 2007, partial summary judgment, as the Trustee states, "in just two

months this Court will hear all remaining issues of fact and law and there would be, at most,

a single appeal to the Ninth Circuit and a single remand to this Court for further

proceedings." Doc. # 193, pp. 4-10. 

For the foregoing reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED that Gila River Indian Community's Motion for Rule 54

Certification of Partial Summary Judgment and For a Stay of the Remaining Claims Pending

Appeal (Doc. # 188) is DENIED.

DATED this 31st day of July, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02045-JAT Document 195 Filed 08/01/07 Page 3 of 3