Parver v. Jet Blue Airlines Corporation et al, No. 2:2010cv01186 - Document 98 (D. Nev. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER that 96 Joint Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification is GRANTED. There being no just reason for delay, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the Clerk shall enter final judgment on all claims adjudicated in Orders 79 and 82 . Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/2/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF

Parver v. Jet Blue Airlines Corporation et al Doc. 98 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 MARILYN PARVER, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) JET BLUE AIRLINES CORPORATION; ) CITY OF LAS VEGAS; LAS VEGAS ) METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; ) OFFICER MAURICE RODRIGUEZ) GALLAR of the City of Las Vegas, OFFICER ) JOHNATHON ANKENY of the City of Las ) Vegas; FAWN DOE, of Jet Blue Airlines ) Flight No. 129; JOHN DOE, of Jet Blue ) Airlines Flight No. 129; DISPATCHER DOE ) of Jet Blue; A LAS VEGAS AIRPORT ) AGENT of Jet Blue Airport Agent, ) ) Defendants. ) ) Case No.: 2:10-cv-01186-GMN-PAL ORDER 15 16 Pending before the Court is the Joint Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification (ECF No. 96) 17 filed on March 11, 2014 by Plaintiff Marilyn Parver (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Las Vegas 18 Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”), Officer Maurice Rodriguez-Gallar (“Officer 19 Rodriguez-Gallar”), and Officer Johnathon Ankeny (“Officer Ankeny”) (collectively, the 20 “LVMPD Defendants”). Defendant JetBlue Airways Corporation, incorrectly named as JET 21 BLUE AIRLINES CORPORATION, (“JetBlue”) filed its Notice of Non-Opposition to the 22 Joint Motion (ECF No. 97) on March 28, 2014. 23 On October 17, 2013, the Court entered Orders (ECF Nos. 79, 82) granting summary 24 judgment to Defendants for all claims alleged in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) 25 except for Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Officer Ankeny in his individual capacity Page 1 of 3 Dockets.Justia.com 1 for alleged use of unreasonable force in making a lawful arrest. That remaining claim was 2 dismissed without prejudice by Stipulation (ECF No. 92) pending appeal to the U.S. Court of 3 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on this Court’s granting of summary judgment against Plaintiff’s 4 other claims against the LVMPD Defendants. The parties have agreed that should the Ninth 5 Circuit reverse this Court’s Order (ECF No. 79) granting partial summary judgment to the 6 LVMPD Defendants, then Plaintiff shall have leave to refile the claim dismissed without 7 prejudice, enabling all claims to be addressed in a single trial. (ECF No. 92.) 8 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) permits this Court to “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly 10 determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Rule 54(b) certification 11 is proper if it will aid in the “expeditious decision” of a case. Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Indus. 12 AB, 11 F.3d 1482, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 797 (9th 13 Cir. 1991)). “However, Rule 54(b) certification is scrutinized to prevent piecemeal appeals in 14 cases which should be reviewed only as single units.” Id. (citations omitted). 15 In this case, not only is there no just reason for delay, but because of the structure of the 16 parties’ stipulation, this case may not proceed without Rule 54(b) certification. Certification 17 will allow the case to continue on toward a final resolution of all claims and will not cause 18 piecemeal litigation. Depending on the decision of the Ninth Circuit on appeal, this case will 19 either be resolved with a single trial or with no trial at all. Furthermore, the facts and legal 20 issues on the claims being certified relating to whether probable cause existed to arrest Plaintiff 21 for obstruction are distinct from the factual and legal disputes involved in whether Officer 22 Ankeny used excessive force in affecting the arrest. The factual basis for the arrest relied 23 exclusively on events and conduct prior to the alleged use of force. Therefore, adjudication of 24 the non-certified use of force claim during a jury trial will not give rise to issues for an appeal 25 of the whole litigation. Page 2 of 3 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification (ECF 3 No. 96) is GRANTED. There being no just reason for delay, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 4 Procedure 54(b), the Clerk shall enter final judgment on all claims adjudicated in Orders (ECF 5 Nos. 79, 82.) 6 2 DATED this _____ day of April, 2014. 7 8 9 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 of 3

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.