Rolovich v. Washington State University

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 NICHOLAS ROLOVICH, NO: 2:22-CV-0319-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING RULE 54(b) 9 v. JUDGMENT

10 WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, an agency of the State 11 of Washington; PATRICK CHUN, Director of Athletics for Washington 12 State University, in his individual capacity; and JAY INSLEE, 13 Governor, in his official capacity,

14 Defendants. 15 16 BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Governor Jay Inslee’s Unopposed 17 Motion for Rule 54(b) Judgment. ECF No. 37. This matter was submitted for 18 consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files 19 herein and is fully informed. 20 1 DISCUSSION 2 On May 30, 2023, this Court granted Defendant Governor Jay Inslee’s

3 Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 33. Plaintiff did not oppose the dismissal. ECF No. 4 28 at 8, n.1. 5 Defendant now seeks to have a final judgment entered.

6 Rule 54(b) allows courts to “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or 7 more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines 8 that there is no just reason for delay.” “[I]n deciding whether there are no just 9 reasons to delay the appeal of individual final judgments [. . .], a district court must

10 take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the equities involved. 11 Consideration of the former is necessary to assure that application of the Rule 12 effectively ‘preserves the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.’”

13 Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980) (citation omitted). 14 Rule 54(b) has a proper place. The Rule was adopted “specifically to avoid 15 the possible injustice of delaying judgment on a distinctly separate claim pending 16 adjudication of the entire case. . . . ” Jewel v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 810 F.3d 622, 628

17 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal brackets omitted, citing Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 18 135 S.Ct. 897, 902–03(2015)). An appeal should not be certified if interlocutory 19 review is more likely to cause additional delay than it is to ameliorate delay

20 problems. l Here, there is no dispute that Plaintiff did not object to the dismissal of Governor Inslee. There is no reason to delay a judgment in his favor. 3|| ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. Defendant Governor Jay Inslee’s Unopposed Motion for Rule 54(b) 5 Judgment, ECF No. 37, is GRANTED. 6 2. Pursuant to F. R. Civ. P. Rule 54(b), the Clerk of Court shall enter a 7 partial judgment of dismissal with prejudice in favor of Defendant 8 Governor Jay Inslee. 9 The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and Judgment accordingly and provide copies to counsel. The file remains OPEN. 11 DATED July 27, 2023.

Se 0. Kies 13 Mike THOMAS O. RICE > United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20