Predator International, Inc. v. Gamo Outdoor USA, Inc.

Filing 384

ORDER denying 383 Motion for an Order Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) or Other Relief. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 5/20/13.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 09-cv-00970-PAB-KMT
PREDATOR INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Colorado corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
GAMO OUTDOOR USA, INC., a Florida corporation,
Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) or Other Relief [Docket No. 383] filed by plaintiff Predator
International, Inc. (“Predator”) on May 14, 2013. Predator requests that the Court either
direct an entry of final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) with
respect to Predator’s copyright claim for damages or permit Predator to try this claim
before a jury. Docket No. 383 at 1-2, ¶¶ 2-3. The Court granted summary judgment to
defendant GAMO Outdoor USA, Inc. (“GAMO”) on Predator’s copyright claim for
damages. Docket Nos. 351 and 379.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows a district court to “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In
order to direct entry of judgment under Rule 54(b), a court must find that three
prerequisites are met: “(1) multiple claims; (2) a final decision on at least one claim; and

(3) a determination by the district court that there is no just reason for delay.” Jordan v.
Pugh, 425 F.3d 820, 826 (10th Cir. 2005). In determining whether to enter judgment
pursuant to Rule 54(b), the Court is to “weigh[ ] Rule 54(b)’s policy of preventing
piecemeal appeals against the inequities that could result from delaying an appeal.”
Stockman's Water Co., LLC v. Vaca Partners, L.P., 425 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir.
2005). Ultimately, granting a Rule 54(b) motion is left to the sound discretion of the trial
court, which “must take into account judicial administrative interests as well as the
equities involved.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980).
Predator argues that relief under Rule 54(b) is appropriate because an appeal
will not interfere with proceedings before this Court and because the Tenth Circuit may
expedite its appeal, “resolv[ing] Predator’s disagreement with the Court concerning
these Orders before a scheduled trial.” Docket No. 383 at 2, ¶ 2. The Court disagrees.
A piecemeal appeal would be inefficient to the parties and to the courts. Moreover,
Predator has failed to demonstrate any inequity or prejudice it will suffer from denying
its motion. As a result, it states no colorable basis to direct entry of judgment under
Rule 54(b).
Wherefore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) or Other
Relief [Docket No. 383] filed by plaintiff Predator International, Inc. is DENIED.

DATED May 20, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
2