Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06527/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06527-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Wrongful Death

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROCIO ADAME ARANJO de )

AGUILAR, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER )

CORPORATION, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-02-6527 REC/LJO

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

PURSUANT TO FRCivP 54(b) AND

STAY OF PROCEEDINGS (Doc.

178), AMENDING ORDER

GRANTING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF

KERN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (Doc. 175) AND

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF KERN

PURSUANT TO RULE 54(b)

By Order filed on December 29, 2005, the court granted

defendant County of Kern’s motion for summary judgment, ruling

that the County was not liable to those plaintiffs who sued it in

these consolidated actions pursuant to California Government Code

§ 835 for damages resulting from the death of decedents when the

van in which they were traveling was struck by an Amtrak train as

the van was crossing the railroad tracks on Poplar Avenue. The

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 187 Filed 03/02/06 Page 1 of 7
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

This is a consolidated action. The lead case number is No. 1

CV-F-02-6527. Consolidated with the lead case are Nos. 02-6559,

03-5271, 03-5632, and 03-5633. Not all plaintiffs in this

consolidated action sued the County of Kern and not all plaintiffs

in this consolidated action are represented by Gregory Moreno,

counsel for the moving plaintiffs. The County’s motion for summary

judgment was directed only to the plaintiffs in Nos. CV-F-03-5632

and CV-F-03-5633. Consequently, when this motion refers to

plaintiffs, it is not referring to all plaintiffs in this action.

However, it is noted that no opposition to this motion has been

filed by the other plaintiffs in this action and that counsel for

the moving plaintiffs represented to the court at oral argument on

February 27, 2006 that he had contacted counsel for all plaintiffs

and that none opposed this motion. 

2

essential issue in the claims against the County was that the

configuration of Poplar Avenue was a dangerous condition of

property within the meaning of Section 835.1

Plaintiffs move the court to amend the Order and certify it

for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b), Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, and to stay all further proceedings in this

action pending the appeal of the Order.

Rule 54(b) provides in pertinent part:

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 delay and

upon an express direction for the entry of

judgment.

In certifying an appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b), the district

court must first determine that it has rendered a “final

judgment,” i.e., a judgment that 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.

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 187 Filed 03/02/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3

1, 7 (1980).

It is conceded by the parties and the court concurs that

this requirement is satisfied.

The court must then whether there is any just reason for

delay. Factors that must be considered are judicial

administrative interests as well as the equities involved. 

Curtiss-Wright, supra, 446 U.S. at 8. 

In considering judicial administrative interests, the

district court may properly consider (a) the separateness of the

claims for relief and whether the claims are separable, and (b)

whether the nature of the claims already determined was such that

no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than

once even if there were subsequent appeals. Curtiss-Wright,

supra. As explained in General Acquisition, Inc. v. Gencorp,

Inc., 23 F.3d 1022, 1030 (9 Cir. 1994): th

Although ‘[n]o precise test exists for

determining whether there is a just reason to

delay,’ ... this court has articulated the

following ‘nonexhaustive list of factors

which a district court should consider when

making a Rule 54(b) determination’:

(1) the relationship between the

adjudicated and unadjudicated

claims; (2) the possibility that

the need for review might or might

not be mooted by future

developments in the district court;

(3) the possibility that the

reviewing court might be obliged to

consider the same issue a second

time; (4) the presence or absence

of a claim or counterclaim which

could result in set-off against the

judgment sought to be made final;

(5) miscellaneous facts such as

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 187 Filed 03/02/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

delay, economic and solvency

considerations, shortening the time

of trial, frivolity of competing

claims, expense and the like.

....

Here, plaintiffs contend, the alleged dangerous condition of

the configuration of Poplar Avenue as it approached and crossed

the railroad tracks is separate and distinct from plaintiffs’

claims against the remaining defendants:

Plaintiffs’ claims against Amtrak, the train

operators (engineers/conductors), and BNSF

stem from negligence resulting from these

defendants operation of the train and their

failure to properly warn motorists of their

presence. In particular, there are questions

as to whether or not warning devices such as

the ditch lights and the train horn were

properly functioning. These issues are

separate and distinct from the dangerous

condition claims alleged against the County

of Kern regarding the configuration of the

intersection where the collision occurred.

In opposing this motion, the County admits that the claim

against it is distinct from the claims of negligence brought

against the remaining defendants. Nonetheless, the County

argues:

[S]ome of the elements of proof for the torts

overlap. For example, whether the harm was

foreseeable and whether the decedents caused

the damages are two key questions that

address both torts. Moreover, the factual

situation as to the County and the remaining

defendants stem from a single car-train

collision. Therefore, depending on the

outcome of the trial against the remaining

defendants, it is possible that ‘the

appellate court will be required to address’

issues which are ‘inseverable, both legally

and factually’ in relation to the allegations

against the other defendants.

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 187 Filed 03/02/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

There is no question here that some of the facts relevant to

the claims against the remaining defendants overlap with those

relevant to the claims against the County. However, it also is

true that the claims against the County largely involve unique

facts which are not germane to the claims against the remaining

defendants. Therefore, although this is not a complex case, it

is not a case where the facts essentially are the same for all of

the claims alleged. Furthermore, if the other defendants obtain

a defense verdict, that verdict will not necessarily moot the

claims against the County. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit will not

be hearing the same appeal twice. Finally, it is noted that none

of the nonmoving plaintiffs or the remaining defendants have

opposed this motion.

Therefore, the court concludes that plaintiffs have

demonstrated that certification for immediate appeal under Rule

54(b) furthers judicial administrative interests as well as the

equities. 

Plaintiffs further argue that good cause exists to stay the

proceedings in the District Court while plaintiffs pursue their

appeal against Kern County. Counsel for plaintiffs, Gregory

Moreno, avers in pertinent part:

14. On January 12, 2006, I spoke with Erin

Frye ... attorney of record for Defendants

National Railroad Passenger Corporation

(‘Amtrak’), Walter Ward, W.M. Dike and

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation in

regards to a stipulation to continue trial;

15. During the above conversation, Erin

Frye, indicated that Defendants wished to

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 187 Filed 03/02/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

reserve their right to request a stay of

proceedings while Plaintiffs pursue their

appeal against the County of Kern ....

Plaintiffs argue that granting a stay of proceedings “will

prevent piecemeal litigation, as it will avoid the possibility of

two separate trials arising out of the same incident” and “will

reduce litigation expenses and be mutually convenient for this

court and all litigants.” 

The County argues that plaintiffs are inconsistent: 

[P]laintiffs assert that although the claims

against the County are severable from the

remaining claims and will not result in

‘piecemeal appeals,’ plaintiffs also request

the Court stay the trial court action as to

the remaining defendants in order to avoid

‘piecemeal litigation.’ ... How a claim is

severable but lends itself to a great risk of

piecemeal litigation is not explained by

plaintiffs.

The court does not agree with the County’s concerns. As

noted, none of nonmoving plaintiffs or the remaining defendants

have opposed this motion, notwithstanding the trial date set for 

August 8, 2006. Staying further proceedings pending the appeal

of the grant of summary judgment for the County of Kern possibly

will avoid the need to conduct two separate trials, thereby

saving judicial resources as well as the resources of the

parties.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule

54(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Certification of

Appeal, and Stay of Proceedings is granted;

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 187 Filed 03/02/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

2. The Order Granting Defendant County of Kern’s Motion for

Summary Judgment filed on December 29, 2005 is hereby amended at

page 18 to include the following:

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter

judgment for the County of Kern pursuant to

Rule 54(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

the court concluding that there is no just

reason for delay. 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for

the County of Kern.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06527-LJO-GSA Document 187 Filed 03/02/06 Page 7 of 7