Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04475/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04475-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL KEATING-TRAYNOR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 DEBORAH GOLDSTEIN et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-04475 CRB

ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR

SEPARATE JUDGMENT

By Memorandum and Order filed June 16, 2006, the Court granted the motions to

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction of Ann Larabee, Providence Health SystemWashington, and Osamu Matsutani (collectively “the Alaska defendants”) . Now pending

before the Court are the Alaska defendants’ motions for a separate judgment pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). After carefully considering the Alaska defendants’

motions and plaintiffs’ opposition dated August 7, 2006, the Court concludes that oral

argument is unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b), and GRANTS the Alaska defendants’

motions.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides, in relevant part:

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.

 

Case 3:05-cv-04475-CRB Document 168 Filed 08/22/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\4475\orderreseparatejudgment.wpd 2

In determining whether to enter a Rule 54(b) separate judgment, the district court must

engage in a two-part inquiry. The 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.’” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General

Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427,

436 (1956)). Once the district court finds that a decision was “final,” it “must go on to

determine whether there is any just reason for delay.” Id. 

The factors the district court may consider in making these inquiries are whether

certification would not result in unnecessary appellate review; whether the claims finally

adjudicated are separate, distinct, and independent of any of the other claims or

counterclaims involved, whether review of these adjudicated claims would not be mooted by

any future developments in the case, and whether the nature of the claims is such that no

appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were

subsequent appeals; and the prejudice to the parties if the decision is not immediately

appealable. Id. at 5.

The Court’s dismissal of the Alaska defendants was “final” and there is no just reason

for delay. The issue as to whether the Court has personal jurisdiction of the Alaska

defendants is separate and independent from the issues as to the other defendants. Thus,

there is no danger that another appellate court will have to decide the same or similar issues

on a subsequent appeal by plaintiffs or other defendants. See Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel

Indus. AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that a Rule 54(b) separate judgment

is appropriate for a dismissal of some parties on personal jurisdiction grounds). Moreover,

plaintiffs’ pending motion for reconsideration does not address the Alaska defendants. The

Court will issue a separate judgment forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2006 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04475-CRB Document 168 Filed 08/22/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\4475\orderreseparatejudgment.wpd 3

Case 3:05-cv-04475-CRB Document 168 Filed 08/22/06 Page 3 of 3