govinfo:USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-00152-7

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 
 
 
Laney Sweet, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
City of Mesa, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
No. CV-17-00152-PHX-GMS 
LEAD CASE 
 
CONSOLIDATED WITH: 
No. CV-17-00715-PHX-GMS 
 
ORDER 
 
Grady Shaver, et al. 
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
v. 
 
City of Mesa, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
 Pending before the Court is Defendant LQ Management’s (“La Quinta”) Motion for 
Entry of Rule 54(b) Judgment. (Doc. 340.) For the following reasons, the Motion is denied. 
DISCUSSION 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides: “When an action presents more 
than one claim for relief —whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross -claim, or third -party 
claim—or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a fi nal 
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.” In determining whether there is no just 

 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
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 
 
reason for delay, courts may consider: 
[W]hether certification wou ld result in unnecessary appellate review; 
whether the claims finally adjudicated were separate, distinct, and 
independent of any other claims; whether review of the adjudicated claims 
would be mooted by any future developments in the case; whether an 
appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if 
there were subsequent appeals; and whether delay in payment of the 
judgment . . . would inflict severe financial harm. 
Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC , 422 F.3d 873, 878 n.2 (9th Cir. 2005). “The function of the 
district court under the Rule is to act as a ‘dispatcher.’ It is left to the sound judicial 
discretion of the district court to determine the appropriate time when each final decision 
in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co. , 
446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) (internal citations and quotations omitted) . Consequently, entering 
judgment under Rule 54(b) “must be reserved for the unusual case in which the costs and 
risks of multiplying the number of procee dings 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.” Frank Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 
(9th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). The Court must consider whether the appeals 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.” Id. (citation omitted). Similar legal or factual issues 
“weigh heavily against entry of judgment under the rule.” Id. (citation omitted). 
 Here, the Court found La Quinta immune from Plaintiffs’ negligence claims under 
Ledvina v. Cerasani , 213 Ariz. 569, 146 P.3d 70 (Ct. App. 2006). (Doc. 339 at 7 –8.) La 
Quinta requests entry of judgment to obtain “finality” in the matter. (Doc. 345 at 1.) 
 La Quinta’s desire to obtain finality does not present a pressing need that outweighs 
the importance of avoiding multiple proceedings and the overcrowding of the appellate 
docket. See, e.g. , Bentley v. City of Mesa , No. CV -17-00966-PHX-DGC, 2020 WL 
8613704, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 21, 2020); Alexander v. City of Mesa , No. CV-14-00754-
PHX-SPL, 2015 WL 13655444, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 6, 2015) (denying certification where 
the plaintiff had not maintained “that the partial adjudication of some of his claims was 

 
- 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 
 
something other than routine in nature, and ha[d] not clearly identified any genuine risk of 
legal prejudice that would occur by progressing forward”); Sanchez v. Maricopa Cnty., No. 
CV 07-1244-PHX-JAT, 2008 WL 2774528, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2008) (“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, 
La Quinta’s motion is denied. 
CONCLUSION 
 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant LQ Management’s Motion for 
Entry of Rule 54(b) Judgment (Doc. 340) is DENIED. 
 Dated this 3rd day of August, 2021. 
 

Passage view · GavelSight