Gonzalez v. Ahern

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ENTRY OF 9 v. JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 54(B)

10 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 494 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiffs, current and former detainees at Santa Rita Jail, filed this action bringing 14 conditions of confinement claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs named as defendants 15 Alameda County, who oversees the Jail; Wellpath, the third-party contractor who provides 16 medical services at the Jail; and Aramark, the third-party contractor who provides food services at 17 the Jail. The Court denied class certification of Plaintiffs’ claims against Wellpath and Aramark, 18 and in July 2024, the Court granted Wellpath’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 264, 19 475.1) Plaintiffs settled their claims against the remaining Defendants and a motion for 20 preliminary approval of Plaintiffs’ class action settlement with the County is pending before the 21 Court. (Dkt. No. 485.) Plaintiffs now move for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) as to their 22 claims against Wellpath. (Dkt. No. 494.) Because there is no just reason for delay and given 23 Wellpath’s non-opposition, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. 24 Under Rule 54(b), “[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief ... or when 25 multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but 26 fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason 27 1 for delay.” This “Rule was adopted ‘specifically to avoid the possible injustice of delay[ing] 2 judgment o[n] a distinctly separate claim [pending] adjudication of the entire case.... The Rule thus 3 aimed to augment, not diminish, appeal opportunity.’” Jewel v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 810 F.3d 622, 4 627–28 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 574 U.S. 405, 409-10 (2015) 5 (alterations in original)). A two-step process governs the Rule 54(b) analysis. “A district court 6 must first determine that it has rendered a ‘final judgment,’ that is, a judgment that is ‘an ultimate 7 disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.’” Wood v. 8 GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Curtiss–Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. 9 Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980)). Second, the court “must determine whether there is any just reason for 10 delay.” Wood, 422 F.3d at 878. The latter determination focuses on: “(1) the interrelationship of 11 the certified claims and the remaining claims in light of the policy against piecemeal review; and 12 (2) equitable factors such as prejudice and delay.” Tsyn v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 14- 13 CV-02552-LB, 2016 WL 7635883, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 27, 2016) (citing Curtiss-Wright, 446 14 U.S. at 8-10; Gregorian v. Izvestia, 871 F.2d 1515, 1518-20 (9th Cir. 1989)). 15 The Court’s summary judgment order as to Wellpath finally resolves all of Plaintiffs’ 16 claims against it. The parties stipulated to dismissal of the claims against Aramark and the only 17 remaining claims are the claims against the County which are subject to the pending motion for 18 preliminary approval of the class action settlement and are wholly independent Plaintiffs’ claims 19 against Wellpath. The Order is thus “final in the sense that it is an ultimate disposition of an 20 individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 7 21 (cleaned up). Additionally, there is no just reason for delay—Wellpath has not opposed entry of 22 judgment, and the claims against the County and Wellpath are not interrelated and thus there is no 23 risk of piecemeal review. Id. at 8. Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion “‘in the interest 24 of sound judicial administration’” and enters judgment in accordance with Rule 54(b) as to 25 Plaintiffs’ claims against Wellpath. Jewel, 810 F.3d at 628 (quoting Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 26 7). 27 Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. The Court will enter judgment by separate order. 1 This Order disposes of Docket No. 494. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: October 16, 2024 4 5 ne JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28