Fulks v. Union Pacific Railroad Company et al

Filing 48

FINAL JUDGMENT Pursuant to Rule 54(b), per 38 Order entered 11/9/11 in favor of Union Pacific Railroad Company on the claims of Evangeline Fulks, Administratrix of the Estate of Julia Fulks, ruilng that Fulks' claims that different or addition al warning devices should have been installed at the crossing in question are preempted by federal law & dismissing those claims with prejudice. Pursuant to 47 Order of Dismissal entered this date, the remainder of this action is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 12/15/2011. (jct)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
EVANGELINA FULKS, Administratrix
of the Estate of Julia Fulks
v.

PLAINTIFF

No. 3:10CV00310 JLH

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

DEFENDANT

FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 54(b)
On November 9, 2011, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting partial summary
judgment to Union Pacific Railroad Company on the claims of Evangelina Fulks, Administratrix of
the Estate of Julia Fulks, ruling that Fulks’ claims that different or additional warning devices should
have been installed at the crossing in question are preempted by federal law and dismissing those
claims. Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court directs entry of
a final judgment as to the claims adjudicated in that Opinion and Order. The Court expressly
determines that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of a final judgment as to those claims.
As explained in an Opinion and Order entered separately today, Evangelina Fulks wishes to dismiss
this action with prejudice; Union Pacific Railroad Company contends that she should not be allowed
to avoid the binding effect of the partial summary judgment by dismissing this action without
prejudice; and Fulks stipulates that the claims addressed in that order are preempted by federal law.
Accordingly, there is no just reason for delay, and entry of a final judgment as to those claims is
appropriate pursuant to Rule 54(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of December, 2011.

J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE