Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00070/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00070-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

Impact Financial Services, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Six400 Check Solutions, LLC; Rory

Buske; Albert Slucher; and Arthur

Arbuckle, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0070-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it Rory Buske, Albert Slucher, and Arthur Arbuckle's ("the

individual defendants") motion for Rule 54(b) entry of judgment (doc. 88). Plaintiff did not

respond. 

 On December 6, 2010, we entered an order dismissing with prejudice Count II of the

Amended Complaint, plaintiff's fraud claim (doc. 69). Count II specifically named the

individual defendants. Count I is for breach of contract and is asserted only against Six400.

See doc. 53. The individual defendants now seek entry of judgment on count II so that they

do not have to wait until the end of trial against Six400 for a final judgment. Moreover, the

individual defendants argue that count II is distinct and separate from count I and that there

is no just reason for delay.

Case 2:10-cv-00070-FJM Document 92 Filed 04/04/11 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 -

Although plaintiff failed to respond, we still consider whether entry of final judgment

is appropriate under Rule 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 54(b) provides that when more than

one claim for relief is presented in an action, or when multiple parties are involved, the

district court may enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or

parties "only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay."

"Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be reserved for the unusual case in which the 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); see also Gausvik v. Perez, 392 F.3d 1006, 1009, n. 2 (9th Cir. 2004). "A

similarity of legal or factual issues will weigh heavily against entry of judgment under the

rule, and in such cases a Rule 54(b) order will be proper only where necessary to avoid a

harsh and unjust result." Frank Briscoe, 776 F.2d at 1416.

We first note that a dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim is a final

judgment on the merits. See Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2002).

We therefore must determine whether there is any "just reason for delay." The individual

defendants claim that there is no relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated

claims to justify delay. We disagree. The factual underpinnings of the breach of contract

claim and the fraud claim are essentially the same. Defendants even argued this in their

motion to dismiss count II (doc. 58). Moreover, the individual defendants are members of

Six400 and trial is scheduled to occur in about five months. Given that this is a routine case

and the factual basis for both claims is substantially the same, entry of final judgment could

result in piecemeal appeals. See Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 879-80 (9th Cir.

2005). Any hardship to the individual defendants caused by their having to wait is

outweighed by the burden of piecemeal appeals and motions for attorneys' fees. We,

therefore, exercise our discretion and deny the motion for entry of judgment under Rule

54(b). See Wood, 422 F.3d at 879; Blair v. Shanahan, 38 F.3d 1514, 1522 (9th Cir. 1994).

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-00070-FJM Document 92 Filed 04/04/11 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 -

Accordingly, it is ORDERED DENYING the individual defendants' motion for Rule

54(b) entry of judgment (doc. 88).

DATED this 1st day of April, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-00070-FJM Document 92 Filed 04/04/11 Page 3 of 3