Opinion
No. CV 07-1244-PHX-JAT.
July 14, 2008
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Determination Under Rule 54(b) (Doc. #66). On October 2, 2007, the Court granted the motion to dismiss of the County Defendants. In the Order, the Court did not include the "no just reason for delay" language. Plaintiff asks the Court to do so at this time so he can appeal the grant of the motion to dismiss.
Rule 54(b) judgments should 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 pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties." Morrison-knudsen Company, Inc. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). Before granting a 54(b) judgment, the Court must make specific findings regarding whether "the appellate court will be required to address legal or factual issues that are similar to those contained in the claims still pending before the trial court. A similarity of legal or actual issues will weigh heavily against" granting a Rule 54(b) Order. Id. The Court should grant such an order only when necessary to avoid a harsh and unjust result. Id.
The Court finds that this is not the rare case that justifies sending up piecemeal appeals to the Circuit Court. Plaintiff has not shown the sort of pressing needs contemplated by a grant of a 54(b) motion, and denial of his motion will not lead to a harsh or unjust result.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Determination Under Rule 54(b) (Doc. #66).