Mazzaferro v. Parisi et al, No. 3:2016cv05641 - Document 102 (N.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 54(b) AS TO DEFENDANT LYNN SEARLE AND VACATING HEARING by Hon. William Alsup granting 90 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b).(whalc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2017)

Download PDF
Mazzaferro v. Parisi et al Doc. 102 1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 RONALD MAZZAFERRO, 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Plaintiff, No. C 16-05641 WHA v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 54(b) AND VACATING HEARING WILLIAM PARISI, KEN JOHNSON, SPENCER CRUM, BRUCE GOLDSTEIN, JOSHUA MYERS, and LYNN SEARLE, Defendants. / 13 14 INTRODUCTION 15 16 17 Defendant Lynne Searle, who was dismissed from this action, moves for final judgment pursuant to FRCP 54(b). For the reasons below, the motion is GRANTED. STATEMENT 18 19 A second amended complaint alleged that defendant Lynne Searle, a private attorney, 20 engaged in a criminal enterprise to help William Parisi embezzle millions of dollars from a trust 21 allegedly established for pro se plaintiff Ronald Mazzaferro. Specifically, Mazzaferro alleged 22 that Attorney Searle supplied fraudulent information about Mazzaferro to the Sonoma County 23 Police Department, which led to his arrest. Based on these allegations, Mazzaferro brought a 24 claim under Section 1983 (Dkt. No. 62). A May 11 order dismissed all claims against Attorney 25 Searle with prejudice on the grounds that she is a private individual not subject to Section 1983, 26 and that any amendment of the complaint would be futile (Dkt. No. 80). The action, however, 27 was not dismissed in its entirety, and there are claims pending against other defendants. 28 Attorney Searle now moves for entry of final judgment pursuant to FRCP 54(b). This order follows full briefing. Dockets.Justia.com 1 ANALYSIS 2 FRCP 54(b) provides that when an action presents more than one claim for relief “the 3 court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties 4 only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” In deciding 5 whether to enter final judgment, the district court should consider “whether the claims under 6 review were separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of 7 the claims already determined was such that no appellate court would have to decide the same 8 issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. 9 Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). Here, there is no just reason to delay judgment in favor of Attorney Searle. The claims 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 against her are legally distinct, and severable from claims against other defendants. She is the 12 only private individual in this action who stood accused of Section 1983 violations, and it was 13 on this basis that the claims against her were dismissed. 14 Moreover, Mazzaferro is a serial plaintiff who has been labeled as a “vexatious litigant” 15 by the Judicial Council of California (Dkt. No. 90-1 at 11) and has filed numerous suits against 16 Attorney Searle (see Dkt. No. 90-1 at 5–9). Therefore, Attorney Searle stands to justly benefit 17 from any preclusive effect that entry of final judgment in this suit may have on other litigations. 18 Mazzaferro’s opposition to this motion offers no relevant authority or argument for why 19 judgment should not be entered. 20 CONCLUSION 21 There is no just reason to delay judgment in favor of Attorney Searle. Accordingly, her 22 motion for judgment pursuant to FRCP 54(b) is GRANTED. The hearing scheduled for August 3 23 is hereby VACATED. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: July 24, 2017. 27 WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.