1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Arizona Yage Assembly, et al., No. CV-20-02373-PHX-ROS
10 Plaintiffs, ORDER
11 v.
12 Merrick B. Garland, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff North American Association of Visionary Churches’ 16 (“NAAVC”) Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Under Rule 54(b). (Doc. 157). NAAVC 17 asks the Court to enter judgment against it—but not any other Plaintiff—so that it may 18 appeal the Court’s March 30, 2022 Order. (Doc. 153). 19 The Motion (Doc. 157) will be denied. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiffs Clay Villanueva,1 Arizona Yage Assembly, North American Association 22 of Visionary Churches, and the Vine of Light Church brought this action against a variety 23 of state and federal government officials and entities seeking monetary, injunctive, and 24 declaratory relief. (Doc. 109 at 87-94). Plaintiffs brought claims against the United States; 25 Merrick Garland, the U.S. Attorney General, Anne Milgram, the Administrator of the Drug 26 Enforcement Agency (“DEA”), Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of 27 Homeland Security (“DHS”), and Chris Magnus, the Commissioner for U.S. Customs and
28 1 Plaintiff Clay Villanueva was voluntarily dismissed on June 2. (Doc. 161). Plaintiff Wilfred Scott Stanley III joined the Fifth Amended Complaint. (Doc. 159). 1 Border Protection (“CBP”) (collectively, “the Federal Defendants”) in their official 2 capacities under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, 3 et seq.; claims against the United States and DEA under the Administrative Procedure Act 4 (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 500, et seq.; claims against a DEA agent under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and 5 claims against state entities and personnel under § 1983 and state laws. (Doc. 109 at 43- 6 87). 7 On March 30, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint. 8 (Doc. 153). The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their RFRA and § 1983 claims 9 against the Federal Defendants. (Doc. 153 at 23). A Fifth Amended Complaint, joined 10 by all Plaintiffs except NAAVC, was filed on May 15, 2022. (Doc. 159). Rather than 11 joining the Fifth Amended Complaint, NAAVC moved for entry of judgment pursuant to 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) so it can immediately appeal the Court’s March 30 13 Order. (Doc. 157 at 1-2). 14 ANALYSIS 15 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide: “When an action presents more than 16 one claim for relief . . . or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of 17 a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court 18 expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The 19 Supreme Court established the framework for Rule 54(b) motions in Sears, Robuck & Co. 20 v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (1956) and Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 21 U.S. 1 (1980). See Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 877-78 (9th Cir. 2005). “To 22 determine whether Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate, the district court ‘must first 23 determine that it is dealing with a ‘final judgment.’” Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 864 24 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Curtiss-Wright, 466 U.S. at 7). If so, the court “must go on to 25 determine whether there is any just reason for delay.” Curtiss-Wright, 466 U.S. at 8. It is 26 within the discretion of the district court to grant or not grant Rule 54(b) in order to “to 27 prevent piecemeal appeals in cases which should be reviewed only as single units.” 28 Stanley, 633 F.3d at 864-65 (quoting id., at 10). 1 The March 30 dismissal Order against Plaintiffs was not a final judgment because 2 the Court granted leave to amend. (Doc. 153 at 12-13, 23); see WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 3 104 F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“[W]hen a district court expressly grants 4 leave to amend, it is plain that the order is not final.”) (emphasis omitted). In the Motion 5 for Entry of Final Judgment, NAAVC argues dismissal with leave to amend is a final 6 judgment. (Doc. 157 at 9) (citing Santa Clara v. Andrus, 572 F.2d 660, 665-66 (9th Cir. 7 1978)). However, the case NAAVC relies on, Santa Clara, is in contrast with the Ninth 8 Circuit’s en banc ruling in WMX Technologies: “We now specifically rule that a plaintiff, 9 who has been given leave to amend, may not file a notice of appeal simply because he does 10 not choose to file an amended complaint. . . . To the extent that any of our cases may 11 suggest a different rule, we now overrule them.” WMX Techs., 104 F.3d at 1136. 12 Even if the March 30 Order could be construed as final judgment, the interest in 13 preventing piecemeal appeals justifies denial of the Motion for Entry of Final Judgment 14 (Doc. 157). See Stanley, 633 F.3d at 864-65 (citation omitted). As Defendants point out, 15 NAAVC’s case is in almost all material respects identical to that of the other Plaintiffs. 16 (Doc. 162 at 1). They raise similar or the same claims against the same Defendants arising 17 from the same violation of their rights—the seizure of ayahuasca belonging to AYA and 18 NAAVC by DHS and the alleged threat of prosecution by the DEA. They chose to litigate 19 together with the same counsel and have joined almost all of the same filings. The only 20 issue separating NAAVC from the other Plaintiffs is that NAAVC raised a § 1983 claim 21 against the DEA in addition to a RFRA claim. (Doc. 109 at 66). 22 Courts routinely deny Rule 54(b) judgment when, as here, the facts underlying 23 plaintiffs’ claims overlap. See, e.g., Wood, 422 F.3d at 883 (“[T]he interests of judicial 24 administration counsel against certifying claims or related issues in remaining claims that 25 are based on interlocking facts, in a routine case, that will likely lead to successive 26 appeals.”); Gonzalez v. U.S. Hum. Rts. Network, No. CV-20-00757-PHX-DWL, 2021 WL 27 1312553, at *4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 2021); Williams v. Winget, No. CV-19-05096-PHX-MTL, 28 2021 WL 2262544, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 3, 2021); Escalera v. Corizon Health Inc., No. 1 |) CV-19-4934-PHX-MTL-JFM, 2020 WL 5593848, at *7 (D. Ariz. Sept. 18, 2020); First Amend. Coal. of Ariz., Inc. v. Ryan, No. CV-14-01447-PHX-NVW, 2016 WL 4236373, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 10, 2016). 4 If the Court granted judgment against NAAVC, the Ninth Circuit might be forced 5 || to hear successive, materially indistinguishable appeals regarding NAAVC and the other 6|| Plaintiffs. The interest in efficient judicial administration thus counsels against entry of final judgment. 8 CONCLUSION 9 The parties chose not to appeal the Court’s March 30 Order on an interlocutory || basis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The Court cannot now authorize an appeal by granting 11 |} final judgment because a final ruling has not been made within the meaning of WMX 12|| Technologies.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Arizona Yage Assembly, et al., No. CV-20-02373-PHX-ROS
10 Plaintiffs, ORDER
11 v.
12 Merrick B. Garland, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff North American Association of Visionary Churches’ 16 (“NAAVC”) Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Under Rule 54(b). (Doc. 157). NAAVC 17 asks the Court to enter judgment against it—but not any other Plaintiff—so that it may 18 appeal the Court’s March 30, 2022 Order. (Doc. 153). 19 The Motion (Doc. 157) will be denied. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiffs Clay Villanueva,1 Arizona Yage Assembly, North American Association 22 of Visionary Churches, and the Vine of Light Church brought this action against a variety 23 of state and federal government officials and entities seeking monetary, injunctive, and 24 declaratory relief. (Doc. 109 at 87-94). Plaintiffs brought claims against the United States; 25 Merrick Garland, the U.S. Attorney General, Anne Milgram, the Administrator of the Drug 26 Enforcement Agency (“DEA”), Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of 27 Homeland Security (“DHS”), and Chris Magnus, the Commissioner for U.S. Customs and
28 1 Plaintiff Clay Villanueva was voluntarily dismissed on June 2. (Doc. 161). Plaintiff Wilfred Scott Stanley III joined the Fifth Amended Complaint. (Doc. 159). 1 Border Protection (“CBP”) (collectively, “the Federal Defendants”) in their official 2 capacities under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, 3 et seq.; claims against the United States and DEA under the Administrative Procedure Act 4 (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 500, et seq.; claims against a DEA agent under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and 5 claims against state entities and personnel under § 1983 and state laws. (Doc. 109 at 43- 6 87). 7 On March 30, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint. 8 (Doc. 153). The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their RFRA and § 1983 claims 9 against the Federal Defendants. (Doc. 153 at 23). A Fifth Amended Complaint, joined 10 by all Plaintiffs except NAAVC, was filed on May 15, 2022. (Doc. 159). Rather than 11 joining the Fifth Amended Complaint, NAAVC moved for entry of judgment pursuant to 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) so it can immediately appeal the Court’s March 30 13 Order. (Doc. 157 at 1-2). 14 ANALYSIS 15 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide: “When an action presents more than 16 one claim for relief . . . or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of 17 a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court 18 expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The 19 Supreme Court established the framework for Rule 54(b) motions in Sears, Robuck & Co. 20 v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (1956) and Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 21 U.S. 1 (1980). See Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 877-78 (9th Cir. 2005). “To 22 determine whether Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate, the district court ‘must first 23 determine that it is dealing with a ‘final judgment.’” Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852, 864 24 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Curtiss-Wright, 466 U.S. at 7). If so, the court “must go on to 25 determine whether there is any just reason for delay.” Curtiss-Wright, 466 U.S. at 8. It is 26 within the discretion of the district court to grant or not grant Rule 54(b) in order to “to 27 prevent piecemeal appeals in cases which should be reviewed only as single units.” 28 Stanley, 633 F.3d at 864-65 (quoting id., at 10). 1 The March 30 dismissal Order against Plaintiffs was not a final judgment because 2 the Court granted leave to amend. (Doc. 153 at 12-13, 23); see WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 3 104 F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“[W]hen a district court expressly grants 4 leave to amend, it is plain that the order is not final.”) (emphasis omitted). In the Motion 5 for Entry of Final Judgment, NAAVC argues dismissal with leave to amend is a final 6 judgment. (Doc. 157 at 9) (citing Santa Clara v. Andrus, 572 F.2d 660, 665-66 (9th Cir. 7 1978)). However, the case NAAVC relies on, Santa Clara, is in contrast with the Ninth 8 Circuit’s en banc ruling in WMX Technologies: “We now specifically rule that a plaintiff, 9 who has been given leave to amend, may not file a notice of appeal simply because he does 10 not choose to file an amended complaint. . . . To the extent that any of our cases may 11 suggest a different rule, we now overrule them.” WMX Techs., 104 F.3d at 1136. 12 Even if the March 30 Order could be construed as final judgment, the interest in 13 preventing piecemeal appeals justifies denial of the Motion for Entry of Final Judgment 14 (Doc. 157). See Stanley, 633 F.3d at 864-65 (citation omitted). As Defendants point out, 15 NAAVC’s case is in almost all material respects identical to that of the other Plaintiffs. 16 (Doc. 162 at 1). They raise similar or the same claims against the same Defendants arising 17 from the same violation of their rights—the seizure of ayahuasca belonging to AYA and 18 NAAVC by DHS and the alleged threat of prosecution by the DEA. They chose to litigate 19 together with the same counsel and have joined almost all of the same filings. The only 20 issue separating NAAVC from the other Plaintiffs is that NAAVC raised a § 1983 claim 21 against the DEA in addition to a RFRA claim. (Doc. 109 at 66). 22 Courts routinely deny Rule 54(b) judgment when, as here, the facts underlying 23 plaintiffs’ claims overlap. See, e.g., Wood, 422 F.3d at 883 (“[T]he interests of judicial 24 administration counsel against certifying claims or related issues in remaining claims that 25 are based on interlocking facts, in a routine case, that will likely lead to successive 26 appeals.”); Gonzalez v. U.S. Hum. Rts. Network, No. CV-20-00757-PHX-DWL, 2021 WL 27 1312553, at *4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 2021); Williams v. Winget, No. CV-19-05096-PHX-MTL, 28 2021 WL 2262544, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 3, 2021); Escalera v. Corizon Health Inc., No. 1 |) CV-19-4934-PHX-MTL-JFM, 2020 WL 5593848, at *7 (D. Ariz. Sept. 18, 2020); First Amend. Coal. of Ariz., Inc. v. Ryan, No. CV-14-01447-PHX-NVW, 2016 WL 4236373, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 10, 2016). 4 If the Court granted judgment against NAAVC, the Ninth Circuit might be forced 5 || to hear successive, materially indistinguishable appeals regarding NAAVC and the other 6|| Plaintiffs. The interest in efficient judicial administration thus counsels against entry of final judgment. 8 CONCLUSION 9 The parties chose not to appeal the Court’s March 30 Order on an interlocutory || basis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The Court cannot now authorize an appeal by granting 11 |} final judgment because a final ruling has not been made within the meaning of WMX 12|| Technologies. What is more, the Court would not enter judgment against NAAVC 13 || pursuant to Rule 54(b) in order “to prevent piecemeal appeals in cases,” such as this, “which should be reviewed only as single units.” Stanley, 633 F.3d at 864-65 (citation || omitted). 16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Enter Final Judgment Under Rule 54(b) (Doc. 157) |) is DENIED. 19 Dated this 25th day of July, 2022. 20 fo - 21 C . ES 22 Honorable Ros yn ©. Silver 3 Senior United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28
-4-