Lester v. Presto Lifts Incorporated et al, No. 2:2012cv00398 - Document 29 (D. Ariz. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER granting 21 Defendant Vonberg Valve's Motion for Entry of Judgment. The Clerk is directed to enter a final judgment dismissing without prejudice all claims against Defendant Vonberg Valve, Inc., pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 8/20/12.(LSP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lester v. Presto Lifts Incorporated et al 1 Doc. 29 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Steven Lester, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. Presto Lifts, Inc., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV 12-398-PHX-PGR ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Vonberg Valve’s Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b). (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Doc. 26.) 17 On February 24, 2012, Lester filed a complaint against Defendants Presto Lifts, Inc., 18 and Vonberg Valve, Inc., setting forth claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of 19 warranty. Lester alleges that he was injured while performing repair work on a scissor lift 20 manufactured by Presto Lifts. He further alleges that the lift contained a defective 21 manufactured by Vonberg Valve. On June 19, 2012, the Court granted without prejudice 22 Vonberg Valve’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 20.) 23 24 25 26 27 Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when multiple claims or 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.” Rule 54(b) certification is proper if it will aid the expeditious resolution of the case. Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993). In 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 considering whether certification under Rule 54(b) is appropriate, the court is to consider 2 whether the claims under review are separable legally and factually, and whether granting 3 the Rule 54(b) request might result in multiple appellate decisions or duplicate proceedings 4 on the same issues. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). 5 Plaintiff contends that the claims against Vonberg Valve are not separable from those 6 against Presto Lifts. (Doc. 26 at 3.) This argument misses the mark, because the Court’s order 7 addressed only personal jurisdiction, an issue which is “easily severable from the merits of 8 the lawsuit.” Core-Vent Corp., 11 F.3d at 1484. Plaintiff also contends that entering 9 10 11 12 13 14 judgment will not expedite the litigation, given that he has filed a complaint against Vonberg in the Northern District of Illinois. (Doc. 26 at 3–4.) It is not evident, however, nor does Plaintiff explain, how an order allowing him to immediately appeal this Court’s ruling on personal jurisdiction would result in multiple appellate decisions or duplicate proceedings concerning the issue or otherwise impede the “efficient administration of justice.” Core-Vent Corp., 11 F.3d at 1484; see, e.g., Animale Group, Inc. v. Sunny’s Perfume, Inc., No. 5:07-cv- 15 13, 2007 WL 2010476 at *1 (S.D.Tex. July 5, 2007) (noting that “[o]ne would be hard16 17 18 19 20 21 pressed to find a decision in which a court denied Rule 54(b) certification after dismissing a party for lack of personal jurisdiction”). In sum, the Court finds there is no just reason to delay entry of judgment. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant Vonberg Valve’s Motion for Entry 22 of Judgment (Doc. 21). The Clerk is directed to enter a final judgment dismissing without 23 prejudice all claims against Defendant Vonberg Valve, Inc., pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 54(b). 25 DATED this 20th day of August, 2012. 26 27 28 -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
