UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
LORENZO M ENDOZA M AR TINEZ; ELIEZER

M ENDOZA M AR TINEZ; ELIU M ENDOZA; GLOR IA M AR TINEZ M ONTES, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. AER O C AR IB B EAN; EM PR ESSA AER OC AR IB B EAN, S.A.; C UB A NA DE AVIAC ION, S.A.; ATR ; GIE AVIONS DE TR ANSPOR T REGIONAL, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-16043 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-03194-W HA Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , San Franc isc o ORDER

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m Alsup, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 7, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER

M AN, W . FLETC HER , a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs a

ppe a l the distric t

c o urt’ s dism issa l of the ir c la i m s a ga i nst Avions de Transport R é g iona l (“ ATR ” ) for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion. Pla intiffs a re the he irs of Lore nz o C ora z on M e ndoz a C e rvante s , who wa s a

pa sse nge r on a

n a irpla ne that c ra she d in C uba , killing e ve ry o ne a b oa rd. ATR de signe d and m an ufa c ture d 

# FIL E D MAY30 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSthe a irpla

ne . At the tim e of the c ra sh, the a irpla ne a lle ge dly

wa s owne d a

nd ope ra t e d by

Ae ro C aribbe an, Em

pre sa Ae roc aribbe an S.A., a

nd C uba n a de Avia tion S.A. (c olle c tive ly

“ the C uba

n de fe nda nts” ), inte rnationa l a irline s ba se d in C uba . Pla intiffs sue d ATR and the C u

ba n de fe nda nts in fe de ra l distric t c ourt, se e k ing da

m a ge s for C e rva

nte s’ s de ath. The distric t c ourt gra

nte d ATR ’ s m otion to dism iss a nd e nte re d judgm e nt for ATR . Tha

t is the de c ision from

whic h pla intiffs a

ppe a l. Howe ve r, the distric t c ourt gra nte d ATR ’ s m otion to dism iss be fore pla i ntiffs ha d prope rly se rve d the C uba n de fe nda nts. The distric t c ourt’ s orde r e n te ring judgm e n t for ATR e xpre ssly did not e nte r judgm e nt with re spe c t to theC uba n de fe nda nts. The re fore , at the tim e pla intiffs file d the ir notic e of a ppe a l with this c ourt, the ir c la im s a ga inst the C uba n de fe nda nts re m a ine d pe n ding be fore the distric t c o urt. Pla i ntiffs ha

ve sinc e se rve d the C u

ba n de fe nda nts a nd a re pursuing the ir c la i m s a ga i nst thosede fe nda nts in the distric t

c o urt. Unde r the se c irc um sta

nc e s, we c onc lude that pla intiffs’ notic e of a p pe a l wa s pre m ature be c a

use the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting ATR ’ s m otion to dism i ss wa s not a n a p pe a l a ble fina l judgm e nt. W e orde r a lim ite d re m a

n d for the distric t c ourt

“ to spe c ify whe the r it inte nde d tha t its dism i ssa l orde r be tre ate d a s a

n a ppe a la ble

2fina l judgm e nt pursua n t to Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 54(b).” Rollins v
. Mortg. Ele c . Re

gistration Sy

s., Inc
. , 737 F.3d 1250, 1251 (9th C ir. 2013). Unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, we hav e jurisdic tion ove r a ppe a l s from

“ fina l judgm e nt[s] tha

t dispose [] of a l l c la im s with re spe c t to a ll pa rtie s.” Dre am Game

s of Ariz., Inc . v . PC

Onsite , 561 F.3d 983, 987 (9th C ir. 2009). In Patc hic k v . K e nsington Publishing C

orp. , 743 F.2d 675 (9th C ir. 1984), we re c ogniz e d a n e xc e ption to tha

t rule whe re “ an

a c tion is dism

isse d a s to a ll of the de fe n da nts who have be e n se rve d a nd only unse rve d de fe nda

n ts re m a in.” Id. at 677. In suc h a
c a se , “ the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r m ay

be c onside re d fina l.” Id. Howe v e r, we have sinc e qua lifie d the Patc hic k rule , holding tha

t it doe s not a

pply “ w he re no fina l judgm e nt is e nte re d a

nd it is c le ar from

the c ourse of proc e e d ings tha t furthe r a djudic ation is c onte m

plate d
. ” Disable d Rights Ac tion C omm. v . Las Ve

gas Ev e nts, Inc
. , 375 F.3d 861, 872 (9th C ir. 2004) (e m pha sis om itte d). Although the distric t c o urt he re e n te re d fina l judgm e nt with re spe c t to ATR , it did not do so with
re spe c t to theC uba

n de fe nda nts. And, a s in Disable d Rights Ac tion C ommitte e ,

“ the e ntire c ourse of e ve nts sugge sts tha t” the orde r dism issing plaintiffs’ c la im s a ga inst ATR

wa s “ not inte nde d fina lly to dispose

of the whole c a se .” Id. at 870. As in D isable d Rights Ac tion C ommitte e , the distric t c ourt he re “ a ppe are d to
a ssum e that

e ve n a fte r the c a se wa s dism isse d a s to [ATR ] ,” pla intiffs we re “ fre e to
3se rve the [C u ba n de fe nda nts] if [the y ] wishe d

to do so.” Id. at 871. Thedistric t c ourt gra nte d ATR ’ s m otion to dism iss on April 20, 2012, a

nd pla intiffs file d the ir notic e of a

ppe a l on M a

y 1, 2012. W e know from the doc k e t

she e t tha t a fte r dism issing ATR , the distric t c ourt sc he d u le d a pre tria l c onfe re nc e and a tria l for pla i ntiffs’ c la im s a g a inst theC uba n de fe nda nts. On Ja

nua ry 9, 2013, thedistric t c ourt re que ste d

a s tatus re p o rt from

pla intiffs, who re sponde d tha t the y we re still try ing to se rve the C uba

n de fe nda nts. On Nove m

be r 19, 2013, pla

intiffs m ove d the d istric t c o urt c le rk for e ntry of de fa ult a ga inst theC uba

n de fe nda nts. The c le rk de c line d to e nte r de fa

ult. On De c e m

be r 11, 2013, plaintiffs m ove d the distric t c ourt for e ntry of de fa

ult a nd de fa ult judgm e nt. The distric t c ourt de nie d the
m otion be c a

use pla intiffs still ha

d not prope rly

se rve d the C uba

n de fe nda n ts. In M arc h 2014, plaintiffs se rve d the C uba n de fe nda n ts. On pla intiffs’
m otion, thec le rk of c ourt e n te re d de fa ult a ga inst theC uba

n de fe nda nts. The distric t c o urt se t a

de a dline of June 6, 2014, for plaintiffs to file a m otion for de fa ult judgm e nt. Pla intiffs ha ve not y e t m ove d for de fa u lt judgm e nt. The distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing ATR thus “ wa s not onetha t ‘ le ft nothing for the

c ourt to do but e xe c ute the judgm e nt.’ ” Id. at 871 (a lte ration
om i tte d). “ [F] urthe r a d

judic ation” of pla intiffs’ c l a im s wa s both “ c onte m plate d”
and a c t ua lly c a rrie d out. Id. at 872. The re fore , the orde r gra nting ATR ’ s m otion to
4dism iss wa s not a fina l judgm e n t, a

nd pla intiffs’ a

ppe a l from

tha t orde r wa s pre m ature . Unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 54(b), a distric t c ourt “ m ay dire c t e ntry of a fina l judgm e nt a s to one or m ore , but fe we r tha n a ll, c la im s . . . if the
c ourt e xpre ssly

de te rm ine s tha

t the re is no just re a s on for de l ay .” While the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting ATR ’ s m otion to dism iss re solve d fe we r tha

n a ll of pla i ntiffs’ c la im s, the c ourt did not “ e xpre ssly de te rm in[e ] tha

t the re is no just
re a s on for de la

y ” unde r R

ule 54(b). “ It m ay

be tha t, by e nte ring judgm e nt, the [distric t] c ourt inte nde d

for the judgm e n t to be a

ppe a la ble , but without a

R ule 54(b) c e rtific at ion, we c annot be c e rta in.” Rollins , 737 F.3d a t 1254.

“ [A] n orde r c onta ining a R ule 54(b) c e rtific ation is suffic i e nt to va lida te a pre m ature ly

file d notic e of a

p pe a l if ne ithe r party

is pre judic e d.” Id. at 1253 (quoting Quac h v . C

ross , 216 F. App’ x 666, 667 (9th C ir. 2007)) (inte rna l quota t ion m ark om itte d). In Rollins , this c ourt orde re d a lim ite d re m and of a pre m ature a

ppe a l for the distric t c ourt to de c ide whe the r its nonfina l dism issa l orde r “ should bec e rtifie d a s a n a ppe a la b le fina l judgm e nt unde r R ule 54(b).” Id.
at 1254. W e follow tha

t a pproa c h he re . “ W e find tha t ne ithe r party

would be pre j udic e d by

a R ule 54(b) c e rtific ation e nte re d on limite d re m an d.” Id. at 1253–54 (quoting Quac h , 216 F. App’ x at 667) (inte rna l quota tion m ark om itte d).
5C onc lusion

W e orde r a lim ite d re m an d for the distric t c ourt to de t e rm i ne whe the r its orde r dism issing plaintiffs’ c la im s a ga inst ATR for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic tion should bec e rtifie d a s a

n a ppe a la ble fina l judgm e nt unde r R ule 54(b). If the distric t c ourt wishe s to c e rtify

its orde r unde r R

ule 54(b), it should m

a k e an e xpre ss finding tha

t the re is no just re a s on for de la y . This pa

ne l sha ll re ta i n jurisdic tion
ove r this a

ppe a l. A c o py

of this orde r sha ll se rve a s the m andat e of lim ite d
re m and. Se e id. at

1254. IT IS SO O RDE RE D.

6