VAZQUEZ-KLECHA v. BICKERSTAFF et al

Filing 81

ORDER granting 79 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 1/7/2022 (esl)

Case 4:20-cv-00227-CDL Document 81 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
CHRISTINA NECOLE VAZQUEZKLECHA,

*
*

Plaintiff,
*
vs.

CASE NO 4:20-CV-227 (CDL)
*

ELIZABETH ANN BICKERSTAFF and
MICHAEL NEELY,
Defendants.

*
*

O R D E R
Plaintiff brought wrongful death claims against Defendants
Elizabeth

Bickerstaff

and

Michael

Neely,

alleging

that

their

negligent actions proximately caused the death of Plaintiff’s
father, Bick Bickerstaff.

Both Defendants

moved for summary

judgment, and the Court granted Elizabeth’s motion in its entirety
but denied Neely’s motion. 1
76.

See Order (Dec. 16, 2021), ECF No.

Thus, only Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Neely remain

pending for trial.

Seeking to have the Court of Appeals review

the Court’s summary judgment in favor of Elizabeth before having
to go to the expense of a trial against Neely alone, Plaintiff
asks the Court to direct final judgment on the Court’s summary

To avoid any confusion, the Court clarifies that the phrase “in its
entirety” in the summary judgment order meant that the Court’s order
disposed of all of Plaintiff’s claims against Elizabeth.
1

Case 4:20-cv-00227-CDL Document 81 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3

judgment ruling against Plaintiff and in favor of Elizabeth (ECF
No. 79).

Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s motion.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the Court
may direct entry of final judgment in favor of Elizabeth only if
it expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.
The Court so finds.

Deciding on appeal whether the Court properly

granted summary judgment in favor of Elizabeth will avoid the
possibility of two trials should the Court of Appeals determine
the Court’s summary judgment ruling was erroneous.
possibility

of

two

unnecessary

jury

important in the ongoing covid era.

trials

is

Minimizing the
particularly

Furthermore, it is unlikely

that the Court of Appeals would have to decide the same issues
again even if one or both Defendants appealed after a future trial.
Finding no just reason for delay, including a specific finding
that judicial economy and the interests of justice will be best
served by the entry of final judgment at this time, the Court
directs the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of Defendant
Elizabeth Ann Bickerstaff and against Plaintiff in this action
based on the Court’s previous summary judgment order (ECF No. 76).
This action is stayed during the pendency of any appeal, and the
previously scheduled trial and corresponding pretrial conference
are canceled.

2

Case 4:20-cv-00227-CDL Document 81 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of January, 2022.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3