United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER ON MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER
FED. R. CIV. P. 54 (B)
J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs and
Intervenor-Plaintiff's Protective Motion for Entry of
Final Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54 (b). Dkt. 327. The Court
has considered pleadings filed regarding the motion and the
case challenges the State's denial of a Clean Water Act
Section 401 Certification and denial of request for approval
of a sublease of state-owned aquatic lands for
Plaintiffs' proposed coal export terminal. In the pending
motions, the Plaintiffs and
Intervenor-Plaintiffnow move the Court for an order directing
judgment be entered under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54 (b). For the
reasons provided below, the motion (Dkt. 327) should be
relevant to the pending motion, on October 23, 2018, the
Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was
granted and all claims against Defendant Hilary Franz were
dismissed as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Dkt. 170. On
December 11, 2018, Defendants' motion for partial summary
judgment was granted and the Plaintiffs' preemption
claims under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination
Act (“ICCTA”) and the Ports and Waterways Safety
Act (“PWSA”) were dismissed. Dkt. 200.
April 11, 2019, the undersigned determined that temporary
abstention was appropriate, and the case was stayed pursuant
to Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman, 312 U.S.
496 (1941). Dkt. 326. The Court found that “in addition
to the principles of comity raised by Pullman,
considerations of judicial economy and the likelihood of
inconsistent results favor temporary abstention.” Dkt.
326, at 8. The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 10,
2019. Dkts. 329 and 331.
Plaintiffs now move the Court to direct entry of a final
judgment on the October 23, 2018 Order on Defendant Hilary
Franz's Motion for Summary Judgment under the Eleventh
Amendment (Dkt. 170) and on the December 11, 2018 Order on
Defendants' and Intervenor-Defendants' Motions for
Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 200). Dkt. 327.
Civ. P. 54 (b), “Judgment on Multiple Claims or
Involving Multiple Parties, ” 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.
Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated,
that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised
at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all
the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.
54 (b) allows a district court in appropriate circumstances
to enter judgment on one or more claims while others remain
unadjudicated.” Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals,
Ltd., 905 F.3d 565, 574 (9th Cir. 2018). “[T]he
district court first must render an ultimate disposition of
an individual claim. The court then must find that there is
no just reason for delaying judgment on this claim.”
DISPOSITION OF AN INDIVIDUAL CLAIM
first requirement - ultimate disposition of an individual
claim - is met as to both orders. All claims were dismissed
against Hilary Franz in the October 2018 order and the
preemption claims were all dismissed in the December 11, 2018
order on the partial motion for summary judgment.
NO JUST ...