Roy v. Pioneer Human Resources Inc

Opinion

2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Dec 14, 2020

4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6

7 EMMANUEL ROY, NO: 2:20-CV-235-RMP 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT

10 PIONEER HUMAN RESOURCES, INC; SPOKANE RESIDENTIAL 11 REENTRY CENTER; DAN SIEGLER; CARLOS SOLOZAR; 12 and SUSAN JOHNSON-CONNERS,

13 Defendants.

14 15 On November 2, 2020, this Court denied a Motion to Remand by Plaintiff 16 Emmanuel Roy. ECF Nos. 16 and 17. In the same Order and Judgment, the Court 17 granted in part Defendants Pioneer Human Resources, Inc., et al.’s Motion to 18 Dismiss with respect to dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff's false imprisonment, 19 breach of statutory duties, and fraud claims, and denied in part Defendants’ Motion 20 to Dismiss with respect to dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff’s malicious abuse 21 1 of process, false arrest, tortious interference with employment, 2 retaliation/negligence, and failure to train or supervise claims. Id. 3 Now before the Court is Plaintiff's November 4, 2020 Motion for Final 4 Judgment, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff communicates that he “declines the opportunity

5 extended by the Court to amend his complaint and instead asks the Court to issue a 6 final judgment” to appeal the Court's denial of this Motion to Remand. ECF No. 18 7 at 2.

8 Defendants responded: “As Plaintiff has now confirmed he will not amend his 9 complaint to state legally sufficient claims, the final judgment of dismissal must be 10 with prejudice as to all claims.” ECF No. 19 at 2. Plaintiff did not file a reply. 11 Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment is governed by Federal Rule of

12 Civil Procedure 54(b), which provides as follows: 13 Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When an action presents more than one claim for relief--whether as a claim, 14 counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim--or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as 15 to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, 16 any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all 17 the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment 18 adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.

19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 20 The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 54(b) to require a district court 21 facing a Rule 54(b) motion, first, to determine whether the motion concerns a “final 1 judgment.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7−8 (1980). “It 2 must be a ‘judgment’ in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for 3 relief, and it must be 'final' in the sense that it is ‘an ultimate disposition of an 4 individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.’” Id. at 7 (quoting

5 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427 (1956)). Put another way, a 6 judgment is final for the purposes of Rule 54(b) when it “terminates the litigation 7 between the parties . . . and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution

8 what has been determined.” Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513, 518 (1956). 9 Plaintiff informs the Court that he will not amend his complaint to address the 10 identified deficiencies in the claims that the Court dismissed without prejudice. See 11 ECF No. 18 at 2. Given Plaintiff’s waiver of his opportunity to amend his complaint

12 to state claims upon which relief can be granted, the claims previously dismissed 13 without prejudice may now be dismissed with prejudice. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 14 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal with prejudice of a pro se complaint is

15 proper when it is clear that deficiencies of a complaint will not be cured by 16 amendment). 17 Furthermore, the Court interprets Plaintiff’s lack of reply to Defendants’

18 request for dismissal with prejudice as consent to entry of final judgment in that 19 form. See LCivR 7(e) (failure to comply with the requirements applicable to 20 motions and responses “may be deemed consent to the entry of an order adverse to 21 the party who violates these rules”). 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Judgment, ECF No. 18, is GRANTED. 3 2. Final judgment shall be ENTERED with prejudice in favor of 4 Defendants with respect to all claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this 6 Order, enter judgment as directed, provide copies to Plaintiff and to counsel, and 7 close the file in this case.

8 DATED December 14, 2020.

9 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson 10 ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21