TSYS Acquiring Solutions, LLC v. Electronic Payment Systems, LLC

Filing 67

ORDER granting TSYS' 59 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/29/10.(REW)

TSYS Acquiring Solutions, LLC v. Electronic Payment Systems, LLC

Doc. 67

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

TSYS Acquiring Solutions, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. Electronic Payment Systems, LLC, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-10-01060-PHX-DGC ORDER

On November 9, 2010, the Court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Electronic Payment Systems, LLC ("EPS"). Doc. 58. Plaintiff TSYS Acquiring Solutions, LLC ("TSYS") has filed a motion for the entry of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 59. EPS does not oppose the motion. Doc. 65. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, or when multiple parties are involved, the district court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties "if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). "`Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be reserved for the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by the pressing needs

Dockets.Justia.com

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

of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.'" Frank Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir. 1985); see Gausvik v. Perez, 392 F.3d 1006, 1009 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004). This is such a case. The issues addressed by TSYS's claim are factually and legally distinct from the issues raised by EPS's counterclaims. The parties have a genuine and pressing need to settle the issues raised in the TSYS claim. See Doc. 58. The Court concludes that there is no just reason for delaying the appeal of the TSYS claim, and that there is good reason to resolve that claim expeditiously. IT IS ORDERED that TSYS's motion for entry of final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) (Doc. 59) is granted. DATED this 29th day of November, 2010.

-2-