Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04029/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04029-39/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SINGH'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION

TO DISMISS- No. C-06-04029 RMW

TER

E-filed on: 7/26/10 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TRACY WATSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. C-06-04029 RMW

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SINGH'S

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO

DISMISS 

[Re Docket Nos. 362 and 366]

On July 23, 2010, the court heard defendant Rima Singh's motion for entry of judgment

pursuant to Rule 54(b) and plaintiffs' motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss the claims against

defendant Singh. The parties oppose each other's motion. For good cause appearing, defendant

Singh's motion is granted and plaintiffs' motion is denied.

The court granted defendant Singh's motion for summary judgment on May 20, 2010. The

motion was unopposed. Although plaintiffs had stated during briefing related to the numerous

motions for summary judgment that they intended to dismiss the claims against defendant Singh,

and reiterated their intent at the summary judgment hearing itself, they never did so, even though the

hearing occurred on December 9, 2009. It also appears that plaintiffs had sought to bargain Singh's

dismissal in exchange for a stipulation regarding the briefing on other motions, yet withdrew their

Case 5:06-cv-04029-RMW Document 375 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT SINGH'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION

TO DISMISS- No. C-06-04029 RMW

TER 2

offer to dismiss her when counsel declined the sought-for stipulation. Plaintiffs' counsel's conduct

suggests they had no legitimate basis for a claim against defendant Singh.

Plaintiffs argue that the court should not grant entry of judgment in Singh's favor because

doing so would violate the spirit of Rule 54 and the fundamental federal policy disfavoring

piecemeal appeals. Yet plaintiffs themselves are seeking dismissal of their claims against Singh, so

the policy of avoiding piecemeal appeals has no application here.

It may be that plaintiffs are motivated more by an attempt to avoid liability for the costs

Singh incurred in defense of this action. See Plaintiffs' Proposed Order, Docket 366-2 (proposing

that each party to bear its own costs). Defendant Singh, however, is entitled to recover her costs as

the prevailing party under Rule 54(d)(1), whether as a result of the dismissal of the claims against

her or as a result of summary judgment being entered in her favor.

The court has already granted defendant Singh’s motion for summary judgment. It is simply

too late for plaintiffs to now seek to dismiss the claims against Singh. The court finds that there is

no just reason for delay and accordingly grants defendant Singh's motion for entry of judgment

under Rule 54(b). Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss their claims against defendant Singh is denied.

DATED: 7/26/10

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04029-RMW Document 375 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 2