Hamilton v. Emerald Isle Lending Company et al

Filing 77

ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Final Order and Certification for Appeal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54(b) on the Fifth Claim for Relief 67 filed 4/15/2011, is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 5/23/2011. (sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-02713-REB-KMT
DAVID L. HAMILTON, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
EMERALD ISLE LENDING COMPANY, a Colorado corporation,
GGBC INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
STEPHEN P. GALLAGHER, individually,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL ORDER
AND CERTIFICATION FOR APPEAL PURSUANT
TO F.R.C.P. 54(b) ON THE FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Final Order and
Certification for Appeal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54(b) on the Fifth Claim for Relief
[#67]1 filed April 15, 2011. I deny the motion.
Rule 54(b) provides that
[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief . . .
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 . . .

1

“[#67]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). Compliance with the rule requires that I find both that the
judgment as to which certification is sought is final “in the sense that it is an ultimate
disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action” and
further that there exists no just reason to delay entry of judgment. Curtiss-Wright
Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 1464-65, 64 L.Ed.2d 1
(1980) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). My discretion to grant or deny
certification “is to be exercised ‘in the interest of sound judicial administration.’” Id., 100
S.Ct. at 1465 (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 435, 76 S.Ct.
895, 899, 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956)).
In determining whether the judgment is final for purposes of Rule 54(b), “[f]actors
the district court should consider are ‘whether the claims under review [are] separable
from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims
already determined [are] such that no appellate court would have to decide the same
issues more than once even if there were subsequent appeals.’” Stockman's Water
Co., LLC v. Vaca Partners, L.P., 425 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Curtiss-Wright Corp., 100 S.Ct. 1465 (second and third alterations in Stockman’s).
Plaintiff has failed to make any showing as to either of these essential elements
necessary for relief under Rule 54(b). Although I have adopted the magistrate judge’s
recommendation that summary judgment be granted as to plaintiff’s Fifth Claim for
Relief (see Order Overruling Objections to and Adopting Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge [#76] entered May 23, 2011), three other claims
remain viable, albeit deferred pending resolution of the parallel state litigation. It would

2

not promote the sound administration of justice to allow plaintiff to yet further splinter his
litigations efforts by prosecuting an appeal of this discrete claim.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Final Order
and Certification for Appeal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54(b) on the Fifth Claim for
Relief [#67] filed April 15, 2011, is DENIED.
Dated May 23, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3