United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
ERIC
J. MARKOVICH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pending
before the Court is Plaintiff and Defendant Campas's
Joint Conditional Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Family
Separation Claim. (Doc. 152). The parties ask this Court to
issue an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
62.1, indicating that the Court would dismiss Plaintiff's
family separation claim (Count Two of the First Amended
Complaint (Doc. 84))[1] and vacate the portions of this
Court's March 26, 2019 Order (Doc. 142) addressing that
claim, if the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit remanded Defendant Campas's currently pending
interlocutory appeal back to this Court. Because both of the
interested parties jointly move for voluntary dismissal of
Count Two, and in the interests of justice and judicial
economy, the Court will grant the request for an indicative
ruling.
I.
Background
This
case was removed from Pima County Superior Court to the
Federal District Court for the District of Arizona on January
18, 2017. (Doc. 1). After discovery, Plaintiff filed two
motions for Partial Summary Judgment: one against Defendant
Erika Campas (Doc. 100) and another against Defendants
Rosebeck and Davis. (Doc. 101). Defendant Campas also filed a
Partial Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the issue
of qualified immunity. (Doc. 106). This Court denied all
three motions for summary judgment on March 26, 2019. (Doc.
140).
Defendant
Campas subsequently provided notice to the Court on April 23,
2019 of her interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals regarding the denial of her cross-motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. 142). Because of that appeal,
Defendant Campas filed a Motion to Stay the Deadline to File
a Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (Doc. 141), which Defendants
Davis and Rosebeck joined. (Doc. 144). On June 21, 2019 this
Court granted the motion to stay, finding that the filing of
Defendant Campas's appeal as to her qualified immunity
claim automatically divested this Court of jurisdiction to
proceed to trial on any of Plaintiff's claims against
Defendant Campas. (Doc. 151). The Court further found that a
stay as to all claims and all defendants was warranted
because bifurcation would go against the interests of
fairness and judicial economy.
Plaintiff
and Defendant Campas now jointly move for voluntary dismissal
of the family separation claim (Count Two) pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). (Doc. 152).
However, Defendant Campas's joinder in this motion is
contingent upon the Court vacating portions of its March 25,
2019 Order regarding Count Two. Id.
II.
Law
The
filing of an interlocutory appeal regarding qualified
immunity automatically divests a district court of
jurisdiction to proceed with trial absent certain findings.
Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992).
However, “[i]f a timely motion is made for relief that
the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that
has been docketed and is pending, the court may . . . state .
. . that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals
remands for that purpose.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 62.1(a)(3). If
the district court states that it would grant the motion,
then the movant “must promptly notify the circuit clerk
under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 62.1(b). The circuit court of appeals may, in
its discretion, then remand the case for further proceedings
and either retain jurisdiction or dismiss the appeal. Fed. R.
App. P. 12.1(b).
A
motion made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2)
allows an action to be dismissed by court order on terms the
court considers proper. Additionally, a court may vacate a
previously issued order if there is a reason that justifies
that relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). This provision in the
federal rules gives courts broad authority to vacate
judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish
justice. See United States v. Sparks, 685 F.2d 1128
(9th Cir. 1982); Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall
Reservation v. Leavitt, 408 F.Supp.2d 1073 (D. Or.
2005); Hawaii Cnty. Green Party v. Clinton, 124
F.Supp.2d 1173 (D. Hawaii 2000).
III.
Discussion
Here,
this Court no longer retains jurisdiction to issue an order
granting the Joint Conditional Motion for Voluntary Dismissal
of Family Separation Claim due to Defendant Campas's
interlocutory appeal. However, as explained above, the Court
may issue an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 62.1 indicating that it would grant the motion if
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the
matter back to this Court.
Given
that both parties jointly move to voluntarily dismiss Count
Two of the First Amended Complaint, this Court would grant
that motion. Further, in the interests of justice and
judicial economy, the Court would also vacate the portion of
its March 26, 2019 Order addressing Count Two of the First
Amended Complaint. By vacating that portion of the Order, all
of Plaintiff's claims under Count Two would then be
resolved and her remaining claims could proceed to trial.
Further, if the Court of Appeals remands the matter back to
this Court, the stay issued by this Court will be lifted and
this case can be set for trial on all of Plaintiff's
claims against all Defendants.
IV.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties'
request for an indicative ruling is GRANTED.
The Court shall vacate the portions of its March 26, 2019
Order addressing Count Two of the First Amended Complaint and
grant the parties' motion for voluntary dismissal of that
claim, if the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
...