Free Order on Motion for Leave to File - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Pending is the defendant Greg Hancock's Motion For Leave To File Motion For Rule 18 54(b) Judgment on Less Than All Claims (Doc. #341). For the reasons set forth below, the 19 Court denies Defendant's motion. 20 The Court will not enter a partial judgment unless Defendant establishes that there is 21 no just reason for delay. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Defendant has not met this burden. In 22 granting a 54(b) certificate the trial judge should determine whether the interests of justice 23 served by an immediate appeal would outweigh the policy against piecemeal appeals. See 24 Bishop v. Capital Financial Services, 109 Idaho 866, 868, 712 P.2d 567, 569 (1985). 25 Granting Defendant's motion would result in unnecessary appellate review. Further, 26 Defendant does not demonstrate how delay would prejudice him financially, or otherwise. 27 28
Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 410 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Ricky Lee Hancock and Brenda Hancock,) ) et al., ) ) Defendant. ) ) Meritage Homes Corporation, et al.,

No. CV 04-0384-PHX-ROS ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Therefore, the interest in avoiding piecemeal appeals outweighs any risk of injustice or harm to Defendant. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendant's Motion For Leave To File Motion For Rule 54(b) Judgment on Less Than All Claims is DENIED.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2006.

-2Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS Document 410 Filed 12/01/2006 Page 2 of 2