The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' RULE 54(b) MOTION
This case was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff Krista Garcia ("Garcia"), through her guardian ad litem, alleges numerous causes of action against the Clovis Unified School District ("CUSD") and several of its employees/administrators.*fn1 Garcia's claims stem from conduct by her former teacher Douglas Burns ("Burns") and CUSD's response to Burns's conduct. CUSD moves under Rule 54(b) for entry of judgment based on the Court's order on Defendants' second motion to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.
On September 14, 2009, the Court dismissed Garcia's first (assault), second (battery), third (false imprisonment), fourth (intentional infliction of emotional distress), sixth (California Education Code §§ 201(c), 212.5 -- sexual harassment), seventh (California Education Code §§ 201(f), 212.5 -- failure to prevent), and twelfth (20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)) causes of action against CUSD. The ninth (negligent supervision) and eleventh (negligent hiring/retention) causes of action against CUSD were partially dismissed.*fn2 The Court concluded that the allegations and the documents that were incorporated by reference showed that CUSD was not deliberately indifferent to Garcia's claims, CUSD did not have a policy of deliberate indifference regarding claims of inappropriate sexual conduct by its staff, and CUSD did not ratify Burns's conduct. See Court's Docket Doc. No. 51 ("the Order"). The claims that remain against CUSD are the eighth (vicarious liability for negligence per se through violation of California Penal Code § 11166), the ninth (negligent supervision of Burns after April 1, 2008), the tenth (negligent training), and the eleventh (negligent hiring/retention of Burns after April 1, 2008) causes of action. In a previous dismissal, the Court remanded Plaintiff's California Civil Code § 51.9 cause of action to the Fresno County Superior Court. See id. at Doc. No. 35. CUSD now moves to finalize the Order under Rule 54(b).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that final entry of judgment should be made on individual claims in multiple claim suits upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(b);*fn3 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 2006). In making a determination under Rule 54(b), a court must first determine that it is dealing with a final judgment, which means a decision that is "an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action." Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436 (1956); Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005). "The word 'claim' in Rule 54(b) refers to a set of facts giving rise to legal rights in the claimant, not to legal theories of recovery based upon those facts." Purdy Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Champion Home Builders Co., 594 F.2d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir. 1979); CMAX, Inc. v. Drewry Photocolor Corp., 295 F.2d 695, 697 (9th Cir. 1961). Second, the court must determine whether there is any just reason for delay. Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 7; Wood, 422 F.3d at 878. "It is left to the sound judicial discretion of the district court to determine the 'appropriate time' when each final decision in a multiple claims action is ready for appeal. This discretion is to be exercised 'in the interest of sound judicial administration.'" Curtiss-Wright Corp., 446 U.S. at 8; Sears, Roebuck, 351 U.S. at 437; Wood, 422 F.3d at 878. A court's application of Rule 54(b) should preserve "the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals." Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8; Sears, Roebuck, 351 U.S. at 438; Wood, 422 F.3d at 878-79. The Ninth Circuit embraces a "pragmatic approach focusing on severability and efficient judicial administration." Wood, 422 F.3d at 880; Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 819 F.2d 1519, 1525 (9th Cir.1987). "[C]laims certified for appeal do not need to be separate and independent from the remaining claims, so long as resolving the claims would 'streamline the ensuing litigation.'" Noel v. Hall, 568 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). However, the less complex a case and the greater the factual issues overlap, then greater will weigh the similarity of legal or factual issues against certification. See Wood, 422 F.3d at 881; Morrison-Knudsen v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). Further, although Rule 54(b) should not be used to promote a race to judgment, Rule 54(b) certification may be used to produce a res judicata effect in another forum, especially where a district court "must either become inactive or incur the risk of wasting its efforts." Continental Airlines, 819 F.2d at 1525; see Shamley v. ITT Corp., 869 F.2d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 1989). The court is to make specific findings that set forth the reasons for granting a Rule 54(b) motion. In re Lindsay, 59 F.3d 942, 951 (9th Cir. 1995).
Defendant's Argument CUSD argues that the Ninth Circuit permits a Rule 54(b) motion to give an order collateral estoppel effect. Garcia is trying to relitigate issues that this Court has twice ruled upon. The Fresno County Superior Court issued a ruling on June 30, 2009, on a demurrer to the § 51.9 cause of action. The state court declined to decide on a demurrer whether Title IX standards apply to a § 51.9 claim against a school district, found that deliberate indifference had been sufficiently pled because Garcia made a report to the secretary Ms. Woods and deliberate indifference is usually a fact based question, this Court had granted leave to amend on the ratification theory, and this Court's first dismissal order could not act as collateral estoppel since it was not a final order. It appears that the state court is disregarding this Court's holdings that the earliest CUSD had knowledge was April 1, 2008, Ms. Woods is not an "appropriate person" under Title IX, CUSD did not act with deliberate indifference, CUSD did not ratify Burns's conduct, and CUSD is not liable for student-on-student harassment. Instead of deciding the § 51.9 issues, the state court is allowing relitigation. The only way to avoid relitigation and wasting this Court's work is through a Rule 54(b) judgment.
Further, the claims that remain active in this Court are distinct and severable from the claims for which judgment is requested. For example, the claims that remain against Burns are distinct because CUSD's liability depends on its response to that conduct. CUSD's response has no bearing on whether Burns actually assaulted, battered, falsely imprisoned, etc. Garcia.
Garcia states that there are three reasons why the motion should be denied. First, "[a]lternative theories of recovery substantially overlap; therefore, partial adjudication is not possibly appealed." Opposition at p.4. Second, it "would be inequitable to grant this motion because [Garcia] is preparing a motion for reconsideration of [the Order]." Id. A declaration from Garcia's counsel indicates that discovery has revealed new evidence that was previously unavailable. Garcia's counsel states that a motion for reconsideration "should be filed by the end of October, if not sooner" because he is awaiting deposition transcripts. Id. at p.2. Finally, the premise of the District's motion is incorrect because the Order cannot act as collateral estoppel. In order to establish collateral estoppel, a party must show that the issue was actually litigated and that evidence was not restricted. Barker v. Hull, 191 Cal.App.3d 221, 226 (1987). Because the motion was presented as a pleading motion before discovery, the evidence was quite literally restricted.
Garcia is relying on three reasons for the Court to deny CUSD's motion. With respect to the argument that granting the motion would be inequitable because a motion for reconsideration is imminent, that argument is unpersuasive. Garcia's counsel states that he has discovered new evidence, but he does not describe the content of the new evidence or in any way indicate how it would warrant reconsideration. Moreover, it is now two weeks into December, over a month removed from the end of October, yet Garcia has filed no motion for reconsideration. Without the filing of the motion or at least a sworn description of the evidence that would call the Court's rulings into question, counsel's unfulfilled intention and general statement about new evidence is not a sufficient reason to deny CUSD's motion.
With respect to the argument that there are alternative theories of recovery that substantially overlap, that argument is conclusory and not explained by Garcia. With the exception of the negligence claims that were voluntarily withdrawn by Garcia, the claims that were dismissed against CUSD all deal with CUSD's response to reports of a teacher's improper sexual conduct. In contrast, the causes of action that remain against CUSD deal with its conduct in hiring Burns, its conduct in supervising Burns between April 1 and May 15, its conduct in training employees regarding California Penal Code § 11166 reporting, and its vicarious liability for the failure of its employees to make a § 11166 report. Half of the remaining causes of action against CUSD deal with conduct that pre-date the incidents with Garcia and Burns. The other two (negligent supervision and vicarious liability for failing to report) do not affect ratification or deliberate indifference. Even if CUSD negligently supervised Burns between April 1 and May 15, that does not change the facts/conduct by CUSD that show CUSD did not adopt Burns's conduct as its own. Nor would negligent supervision between April 1 and May 15 change the facts that show CUSD did not expose Garcia to harassment or make her more vulnerable to it. Thus, the remaining causes of action are all negligence based and have different factual bases from the dismissed causes of action. In terms of the causes of action against Burns, those claims are based on his direct actions against Garcia. Assuming that all of the allegations against Burns are correct, such conduct would not create liability against CUSD. Instead, liability would depend on CUSD's response to the claims of improper sexual conduct, i.e. did CUSD act deliberately indifferent and did CUSD ratify. In other words, liability against CUSD requires a different factual predicates than that ...