Robbie Powelson v. Curtis Havel, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBBIE POWELSON, Case No. 24-cv-08245-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 v. CERTIFY JUDGMENT ON STATE LAW CLAIMS OR, IN THE 10 CURTIS HAVEL, et al., ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendants. 11 Re: ECF No. 85 12 13 Now before the Court is Plaintiff Robbie Powelson’s motion to certify judgment on state 14 law claims or, in the alternative, for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 85. The 15 Court will deny the motion. 16 I. BACKGROUND 17 Plaintiff Robbie Powelson brings this action against the Harbormaster of the Richardson 18 Bay Regional Agency and others based on criminal prosecutions of Powelson arising from arrests 19 in March and May 2021.1 ECF No. 34. Powelson alleges that the arrests were based on fabricated 20 evidence and made without due process and the subsequent prosecutions were malicious. His 21 amended complaint brings claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violation of the Bane Act, 22 negligence, and violation of the Federal Tort Claims Act. 23 On September 22, 2025, the Court dismissed Powelson’s state law Bane Act and 24 negligence claims with prejudice as being time-barred. ECF No. 78 at 11–12. Powelson moved 25

26 1 RBRA Defendants include the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (“RBRA”), Curtis Havel, James Malcolm, and Beth Pollard. SPD Defendants, who included the Sausalito Police 27 Department (“SPD”), the City of Sausalito, John Rohrbacher, Bill Fraas, Stacie Gregory, Brian 1 for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of that order, ECF No. 81, but the Court denied the 2 motion because Powelson sought to make arguments that he had not previously presented in his 3 original opposition to the motion to dismiss. ECF Nos. 84. 4 Powelson now brings a motion for judgment on partial findings pursuant to Rule 54(b) of 5 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, for reconsideration. ECF No. 85. 6 Defendants opposed the motion. ECF Nos. 85, 89. Powelson did not file a reply. 7 II. LEGAL STANDARD 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) “provides that final entry of judgment should be 9 made on individual claims in multiple claim suits ‘upon an express determination that there is no 10 just reason for delay.’” AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 954 (9th 11 Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). “The burden is on the party endeavoring to obtain Rule 12 54(b) certification to demonstrate that the case warrants certification.” Braswell Shipyards, Inc. v. 13 Beazer E., Inc., 2 F.3d 1331, 1335 (4th Cir. 1993). “Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be reserved 14 for the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of 15 overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants for an early 16 and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.” Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer, 655 17 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). “Rule 54(b) certification is recognized as the exception rather than 18 the norm.” Braswell, 2 F.3d at 1335. 19 In considering a motion for entry of judgment on partial findings, the district court must 20 determine (1) whether it is dealing with a final judgment; and (2) whether there is just reason for 21 delay. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). “[A] district court must take 22 into account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved” in making its 23 determination. Id. at 8. 24 As relevant here, a party seeking reconsideration of an order must show “a manifest failure 25 by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the 26 Court before” the challenged order was issued. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). 27 III. DISCUSSION 1 claims arise from the same alleged conduct and overlapping facts relating to his arrest and 2 prosecution. Thus, entering partial judgment would “result in the successive appeals the Ninth 3 Circuit warned against,” Nirvana L.L.C. v. Marc Jacobs Int'l L.L.C., No. LA CV18-10743 (SK), 4 2024 WL 3075219, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2024) (citation modified), as the state claims at issue 5 are deeply factually intertwined with the federal claims, none of which would be subject to the 6 requested partial judgment, see AmerisourceBergen, 465 F.3d at 954 (noting that a district court 7 has a duty to “to prevent piecemeal appeals”). “[T]his factor weighs significantly against 8 certification.” Nirvana, 2024 WL 3075219, at *4. 9 Second, there is nothing to be gained by entering partial judgment. “Ordinarily there is a 10 readily apparent reason why early appeal makes sense.” Bolling v. Dendreon Corp., No. C13- 11 0872JLR, 2014 WL 12029280, at *2 (W.D. Wash. July 15, 2014). But not in this case. As in 12 Nirvana, “allowing an early appeal would not simplify discovery in any way or otherwise promote 13 judicial efficiency. Id. As noted above, the dismissed claims are largely predicate on the same 14 facts as the remaining claims. There is no pressing need that requires an early and separate 15 judgment. McClellan v. Kern Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., No. 1:10-CV-00386-LJO-MJ, 2014 WL 16 7004738, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2014). “Finally, multiplying the number of proceedings in this 17 case will not ensure efficient use of court resources.” Id. 18 The Court will also deny Powelson’s second request for leave to file a motion for 19 reconsideration. Powelson merely repeats the arguments not raised in his original motion to 20 dismiss, which led the Court to deny his previous motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 84. 21 Powelson’s repetition of argument violates Civil Local Rule 7-9(c) which states that “[n]o motion 22 for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the 23 applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks 24 to have reconsidered.” See Richey v. Borough, No. 3:14-CV-00170 JWS, 2015 WL 1962880, at 25 *1 (D. Alaska Apr. 30, 2015) (“A motion will not be granted if it simply repeats arguments that 26 were made, or could have been made, when the court reached its original decision.”). 27 Accordingly, the Court will deny Powelson’s request in the alternative for leave to file a 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Powelson’s motion to certify judgment on 3 state law claims or, in the alternative, for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 4 IT ISSO ORDERED. ® 5 Dated: June 9, 2026 6 JON S. TIGA 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14

15 16

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