Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01285/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01285-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

06cv1285

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDIA HOUSTON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1285-IEG(AJB)

Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte

Request to Certify Issues for

Immediate Appeal [Doc. 241]

vs.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiffs Claudia, Brittany, Cassandra, and Jonas Houston, have filed an ex parte request

for the Court to certify for immediate appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) the following orders:

August 18, 2008 order denying Plaintiffs’ application for extension of time; September 16, 2008

Order denying Plaintiffs’ application for reconsideration; and February 20, 2008 order dismissing

certain claims with prejudice. The Court DENIES this request 

Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “When an action presents

more than one claim for relief . . . or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry

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

expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” In determining whether it is

appropriate to enter judgment under Rule 54(b), the court must first determine whether the

decision is “‘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,

Case 3:06-cv-01285-MMA-AJB Document 242 Filed 10/31/08 Page 1 of 2
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

06cv1285

7 (1980) (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 472, 436 (1956)). If the court finds

the decision as to the claim is “final,” the court must then determine “whether there is any just

reason for delay.” Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. at 8. In making this determination, the court

should consider “administrative interests as well as the equities involved” all with an eye toward

avoiding piecemeal appeals. Id.; see also Wood v. GCG Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 878 n.2 (9th

Cir. 2005). Factors to evaluate include “whether certification would result in unnecessary appellate

review; whether the claims finally adjudicated were separate, distinct, and independent of any

other claims; whether review of the adjudicated claims would be mooted by any future

developments in the case; [and] whether an appellate court would have to decide the same issues

more than once even if there were a subsequent appeal . . . .” Wood, 422 F.3d at 878, n.2.

In reviewing these factors, the Court determines it is not appropriate to enter judgment

under Rule 54(b) with regard to any of the orders as requested by Plaintiffs. The Court previously

denied Plaintiffs’ request to certify the February 20, 2008 order for immediate appeal, see Order

filed June 24, 2008, Doc. No. 228, and the Court will not revisit the reasons why such an appeal is

not appropriate. With regard to the August 18 and September 16, 2008 orders, the Court also

determines that neither administrative interests nor equities weigh in favor of allowing immediate

appeal. As explained in the Court’s June 24, 2008 order, the claims dismissed by the Court with

prejudice are ones which have been previously litigated or are asserted against immune parties. In

addition, the dismissed claims allege matters intertwined with the claims dismissed without

prejudice and with leave to amend, such that interlocutory appeal will likely result in unnecessary

appellate review and duplication of effort. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion

for immediate entry of judgment under Rule 54(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 31, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-01285-MMA-AJB Document 242 Filed 10/31/08 Page 2 of 2