Centeno v. American Liberty Insurance Company et al
Filing
84
ORDER granting 62 Motion for Rule 54(b) Judgment. Final judgment is entered in favor of Defendant S&C Claims Services, Inc. and Randi Kerner under Rule 54(b). Signed by Judge Susan M Brnovich on 5/22/19. (DXD)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Jeanette Centeno,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-18-01059-PHX-SMB
American Liberty Insurance Company, et
al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
Pending before the Court is Defendants S&C Claims Services, Inc. (“S&C”) and
16
Randi Kerner’s (“Kerner”) Motion for Rule 54(b) Judgment. (Doc. 62). Plaintiff opposes
17
the motion. (Doc. 64).
18
I.
19
Legal Standard
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure reads as follows:
27
When an action presents more than one claim for relief—
whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party
claim—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. Otherwise, any order or
other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than
all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the
parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties
and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment
adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and
liabilities.
28
The Court must first determine that a “final judgment” has been rendered and then
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
determine whether there is any just reason for delay. Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d
2
873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005). In considering whether certification under Rule 54(b) is
3
appropriate, the Court is to consider whether the claims under review are separable legally
4
and factually, and whether granting the Rule 54(b) request might result in multiple
5
appellate decisions or duplicate proceedings on the same issues. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v.
6
General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). The Rule was adopted “specifically to avoid the
7
possible injustice of delaying judgment on a distinctly separate claim pending adjudication
8
of the entire case. . .” The Rule thus aimed to augment, not diminish, appeal opportunity.”
9
Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897, 902–03 (2015) (internal quotation marks,
10
alterations, and citations omitted).
11
II. Discussion
12
This case arises out of Plaintiff Jeanette Centeno’s workers’ compensation claim
13
filed with American Liberty Insurance Company (“ALIC”). In regard to the handling of
14
her workers’ compensation claim, Plaintiff alleges that the wrongful conduct of ALIC,
15
S&C, and Kerner includes failing to conduct a reasonable investigation, failing to timely
16
recognize Plaintiff’s compensable injury, failing to accept undisputed medical evidence,
17
denying the existence and/or extent of injury without input of competent individuals,
18
creating pretextual reasons to deny and/or delay payment, ignoring and refusing to consider
19
information favorable to Plaintiff, and failing to ensure that the industry’s best practices
20
were applied consistently.
21
All claims against Defendants S&C and Kerner were dismissed on February 12,
22
2019. (Doc. 60). The claims were dismissed on a legal issue when the Court found that
23
aiding and abetting required some separate conduct by S&C and Kerner and none was
24
alleged.
25
dealing required a contractual relationship and dismissed that claim as to S&C because
26
there was no contractual relationship with Plaintiff. The remaining claim is against ALIC
27
for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
28
Additionally, the Court found that a breach of the duty of good faith and fair
Plaintiff argues that the Court should not enter final judgment because the aiding
-2-
1
and abetting claims are secondary torts that require primary tortious conduct and so
2
appellate review of the aiding and abetting claims may never be necessary. (Doc. 64).
3
Plaintiff relies on the ruling in Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2005).
4
However, that decision is distinguishable from the present case. In Wood, the court
5
dismissed several claims and left several claims remaining. Both the dismissed and live
6
claims revolved around alleged employment discrimination. The dismissed claims were
7
based on a different theory of adverse treatment rather than a separate and distinct claim.
8
Here the dismissed claims are based on a separate legal theory and against distinct
9
defendants and involve a threshold issue that does not apply to the remaining defendant.
10
The Court finds that there is no just reason for delay, and accordingly,
11
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants S&C Services, Inc. and Randi Kerner’s
12
13
14
15
Motion for Rule 54(b) Judgment. (Doc. 62).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that final judgment is entered in favor of Defendant
S&C Claims Services, Inc. and Randi Kerner under Rule 54(b).
Dated this 22nd day of May, 2019.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?