Opinion
ORDER (1) GRANTING REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF CITY OF MEXICO BEACH FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54(b) (2) DENYING MOTION OF CITY OF MEXICO BEACH FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54(b)
DICKRAN TEVRIZIAN, District Judge.
I. Background
A. Factual Summary
Because the parties are generally familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, the Court does not recount it here except as necessary to explain its decision in response to the issues raised herein.
On August 18, 2003, this Court granted two separately filed motions of defendants City of Mexico Beach (the "City") and defendant Desert Hot Springs Public Financing Authority (the "Desert") (collectively referred to as "Defendants") to dismiss the Third Amended Consolidated Class Action complaint on the grounds that Plaintiffs' claims against the City are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. This Court dismissed all claims as to the City and Dessert with prejudice and without leave to amend.
Based on this Court's ruling, the City now moves for entry of judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b), and the Dessert has filed to Join the City's motion for entry of judgment.
B. Procedural History
On June 1, 2004, City filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 54(b), which is presently before this court.
On June 4, 2004, Desert filed a Joinder in the City's Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 54(b).
On June 7, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to City's Motion for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); and Statement of Non-Opposition to Desert's Joinder in Same Motion.
II. Discussion
A. Analysis
1. Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is Granted
In conjunction with the Motion for Entry of Judgment, Defendants request that this Court take judicial notice of the following documents in the Court's file: (1) The Court's Order Granting Defendant Desert's Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Failure to State a Claim entered on August 19, 2003; and (2) The Court's Order Granting Defendant City's Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Failure to State a Claim entered on August 19, 2003.
Because such documents constitute public records capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, have not been opposed by Plaintiffs, and bear a direct relation to matters at issue in the present proceeding, Defendants' request for Judicial Notice is granted as to the aforementioned materials in Support of Motions for Entry of Judgment.
2. The City and the Dessert are Not Entitled to Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b)
On August 19, 2004, this Court entered an Order granting the City's Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Failure to State a Claim and an Order granting the Desert's Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Failure to State a Claim. Based on this Court's August 19, 2004 rulings, the City and the Dessert now move for entry of judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides:
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action... when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the... parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an direction for the entry of judgment.
Rule 54(b) (emphasis added). Moreover, in order for the court to properly grant an Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b), the plaintiff must be one of "multiple parties" and there must be a final decision by the trial court as to at least one party. Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. , 819 F.2d 1519, 1524 (9th Cir. 1987)("Rule 54 requires a certifiable judgement... finally to adjudicate the position of at least one party to a multiple-party action.").
Defendants now contend that Entry of Judgment is appropriate on the grounds that this Court's Orders Dismissing Plaintiffs' Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) satisfies the "final decision" requirement set forth by Rule 54(b). This Court disagrees with Defendants and is not compelled by their arguments due to the fact that the Orders at issue were Orders to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Furthermore, Defendants have not cited any authority whatsoever and this Court is not aware of any authority specifically demonstrating that a party, whose claims have been dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), is entitled to an Entry of Judgment. Both Orders were dispositive and appealable. Accordingly, this Court concludes that Defendants are not entitled to Entry of Judgment on an Order to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
III. Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, this Court GRANTS Defendants' request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for Entry of Judgment and DENIES Defendants' Motion for Entry of Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.