Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01071/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01071-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

Frank Estrada and Carman Estrada,

husband and wife; and Othon Luna and

Estella Luna, husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of San Luis, an Arizona municipal

corporation; Rural/Metro Fire

Department Inc., an Arizona corporation;

CT Corporate System, an Arizona

corporation; Rural/Metro Protection

Services, Inc., an Arizona corporation;

Rural Metro (Delaware) Corporation

(FN), a Delaware corporation; and Rafael

Torres and Jane Doe Torres, in their

personal capacities,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1071-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On November 15, 2007, the Court issued an order granting Defendants’ motions to

dismiss. Dkt. #54. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to amend that order. Dkt. #57. The Court

will deny the motion.

A. Background.

Plaintiffs Frank Estrada and Othon Luna worked for the City of San Luis fire

department. Estrada was a Battalion Chief and Luna was the Fire Chief. Plaintiffs were

terminated in 2006.

Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a complaint against Rural/Metro Fire

Case 2:07-cv-01071-DGC Document 59 Filed 01/16/08 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 -

Department Inc., Rural/Metro Protection Services, Inc. and Rural Metro (Delaware)

Corporation (FN) (collectively, “Rural/Metro”), the City of San Luis (“City”), Rafael and

Jane Doe Torres, and CT Corporate System. Dkt. #1. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint asserts

seventeen claims: wrongful termination, retaliation, negligence per se, intentional

interference with contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional

and negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, defamation, negligent

supervision and retention, false light invasion of privacy, violation of federal civil rights,

violation of state civil rights, violation of A.R.S. § 38-431, breach of contract, punitive

damages under federal law, punitive damages under state law, and loss of consortium.

In its November 15, 2007 order, the Court dismissed all claims asserted against Rural

Metro based on Noerr-Pennington immunity, dismissed the state law claims asserted against

the City and the Torres’s because Plaintiffs had failed to comply with Arizona’s notice of

claim statute, and dismissed CT Corporate System from this action because the amended

complaint asserted no claim for relief against it. Dkt. #45.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay discovery pending appeal.

Dkt. ##48, 52. The Court denied the motion to stay because it appeared that Plaintiffs’

attempted interlocutory appeal was premature since final judgment had not been entered with

respect to the dismissed claims. Dkt. #54.

B. Discussion.

Plaintiffs request that the November 15, 2007 order be amended to make it a final

appealable order under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #57.

Rule 54(b) provides that 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.

Plaintiffs assert that there is no just reason for delay of a final judgment. Dkt. #57. But

Plaintiffs present no argument in support of this assertion.

 “‘Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be reserved for the unusual case in which the

Case 2:07-cv-01071-DGC Document 59 Filed 01/16/08 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 -

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) (quoting Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962,

965 (9th Cir. 1981)). Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a pressing need for the entry of partial

final judgment under Rule 54(b). Nor have Plaintiffs shown that the entry of partial final

judgment is “‘necessary to avoid a harsh and unjust result[.]” Id. The Court will deny

Plaintiffs’ motion. 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 stating: “The dangers of profligate Rule 54(b) determinations have materialized

in this case. We and the parties have been burdened with the time and expense of five

appeals, and 334 pages of briefs, in significant part because of the routine 54(b)

determinations issued for interlocutory rulings.”).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to amend November 15, 2007 order nunc

pro tunc (Dkt. #57) is denied.

DATED this 16th day of January, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01071-DGC Document 59 Filed 01/16/08 Page 3 of 3