Evans v. Critter Control Operations Incorporated et al

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jon Evans,
Plaintiff,
v.
Critter Control Operations Incorporated, et
al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-22-02049-PHX-JJT
ORDER
At issue is Defendant France Khosravi’s Motion to Terminate or Dismiss Defendant
France Khosravi as a Party (“Motion”) (Doc. 211, Mot.), to which Plaintiff responded
(Doc. 218, Resp.) and Defendant replied (Doc. 221, Reply). For the reasons below, the
Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion.
Plaintiff Jon Evans brought only two claims against Defendant Khosravi: (1) unpaid
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”); and (2) retaliatory
termination in violation of the FLSA. (Doc. 104 ¶¶ 61–71.) These two FLSA claims, among
other claims, were also asserted against the other named Defendants. At oral argument
before the Honorable Susan R. Bolton, Plaintiff conceded that he was exempt from
overtime and abandoned his overtime claim. (Doc. 202, Order, 21 n.18.) Accordingly,
Judge Bolton granted summary judgment on this claim (Order at 21), leaving only a
retaliation claim standing against Defendant Khosravi.
In an Order dated July 25, 2023, Judge Bolton granted summary judgment as to
Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. (Order at 22.) Plaintiff failed to establish, as a threshold matter,
Case 2:22-cv-02049-JJT Document 223 Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
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
that he provided his employer “fair notice” of his overtime complaint. (Order at 22.)
Because Plaintiff’s claim failed at the threshold of establishing a prima facie case of
retaliation under the FLSA, the arguments that Defendant Khosravi raised in his Motion
for Summary Judgment were rendered moot and his Motion was denied for that reason.
(See Order at 22 n.19.)
Defendant Khosravi now moves this Court to terminate him as a party in this matter.
(Mot. at 1.) Defendant Khosravi also seeks “an order of final judgment so the record is
clear that he is no longer a party in this case and, therefore, is not subject to any other Court
orders or participation at trial, besides testifying as a witness if one of the other parties
wishes to call him as a witness.” (Mot. at 2.) In response, Plaintiff does not object to
terminating Defendant Khosravi as a party but sought to preserve his right to appeal the
Court’s grant of summary judgment once a final judgment was rendered. (Resp. at 1–2; see
also Reply at 5–7 (interparty email correspondence).)
Because no claims remain against Defendant Khosravi after the grant of summary
judgment as to Plaintiff’s two FLSA claims, the Court agrees that Defendant Khosravi
should be terminated as a party. However, this Court cannot enter a judgement in favor of
Defendant Khosravi until all claims are adjudicated as to all parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), “when an action presents more than
one claim for relief . . . or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of
a final judgment as 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.” Here, Defendant Khosravi does
not attempt to demonstrate that no just reason for delay exists for entry of a partial final
judgment, nor does the Court so find. Rather, Defendant Khosravi relies exclusively on
Rule 58(a) and Rule 41(b), neither of which permit the Court to enter a partial judgment
when multiple claims and parties remain. The only Rule that does so is Rule 54(b), of which
Defendant Khosravi’s Motion is silent.
. . .
. . .
Case 2:22-cv-02049-JJT Document 223 Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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
Accordingly, while the Court will instruct the Clerk of Court to terminate Defendant
Khosravi as a party to this action, the Court will not enter partial final judgment in favor
of Defendant Khosravi until this matter is fully adjudicated.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Defendant
Khosravi’s Motion to Terminate or Dismiss France Khosravi as a Party (Doc. 211).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate Defendant
Khosravi as a party in this matter.
Dated this 20th day of October, 2025.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
Case 2:22-cv-02049-JJT Document 223 Filed 10/20/25 Page 3 of 3