United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 54(B)
MARSHA J. PECHMAN, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ignacio Lanuza's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b). Having reviewed the motion, Defendants' responses, (Dkt. Nos. 39, 40), and the balance of the record, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs motion.
Mr. Lanuza commenced this action on October 23, 2014 against Defendant Jonathan M. Love and Defendant United States. (Dkt. No. 1.) Both Defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Lanuzas complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 14.) On March 20, 2015, the Court entered an Order granting Defendant Loves motion to dismiss and granting in part and denying in part Defendant United States' motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 35.) The Court granted Defendant Love's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Ninth Circuits opinion in Mirmehdi v. United States, 689 F.3d 975, 981 (9th Cir. 2011), foreclosed a Bivens remedy in this case. (Id. at 6-9.)
Mr. Lanuza now moves the Court to enter final judgment on his claim against Defendant Love pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) so that he can appeal the Courts dismissal of that claim. (Dkt. No. 38.) Defendant Love and Defendant United States have filed responses to Mr. Lanuzas motion in which they indicate that they do not oppose the motion. (Dkt. Nos. 39, 40.)
A. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, subsection (b) provides:
When an action presents more than one claim for relief-whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim-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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Once final judgment is entered, that judgment becomes immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. To determine whether Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate, the Court must "first determine that it is dealing with a final judgment." Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980) (quotations omitted). "It must be a Judgment' in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must be final' in the sense that it is 2017an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action." Id. (citations omitted). "Once having found finality, the district court must go on to determine whether there is any just reason for delay." Id. at 8.
"[I]n deciding whether there are no just reasons to delay the appeal of individual final judgments" the Court "must take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved." Id. It is proper for the Court to consider factors such as "whether the claims under review were separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and 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." Id.
B. Final Judgment Against Defendant Love
Mr. Lanuza argues it is appropriate for the Court to enter final judgment on his claim against Defendant Love pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). (Dkt. No. 38 at 2-7.) The Court agrees with Mr. Lanuza.
First, the Courts Order granting Defendant Loves motion to dismiss disposed of all claims against him. (Dkt. No. 35 at 6-9.) Therefore, the Courts Order was an "ultimate disposition" as to all claims against one of the Defendants in this matter and constitutes a "final judgment." Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. at 7. Second, there is no just reason to delay appeal of Defendant Loves dismissal from this case. Id. at 8. Judicial administrative interests weigh in favor of entering final judgment against Defendant Love. It is true that the Mr. Lanuzas claim against Defendant Love arises from the same set of facts as his claim against Defendant United States. However, the main ...