Massey, Inc. et al v. Moe's Southwest Grill, LLC et al
Filing
367
ORDER granting Movant's 337 Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification. The Clerk is ORDERED to enter final judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs David Titshaw; Taylor Investment Partners II, LLC d/b/a Tip II Ansley, LLC and Tip II Suburban, LLC; Rounding Third, LLC; 3M Restaurants, LLC; and The Jimmy Legs Group, LLC. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 5/8/2013. (cem)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
MASSEY, INC., et. al,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MOE’S SOUTHWEST GRILL,
LLC, et. al,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:07-CV-0741-RWS
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs David Titshaw; Taylor
Investment Partners II, LLC d/b/a Tip II Ansley, LLC and Tip II Suburban,
LLC; Rounding Third, LLC; 3M Restaurants, LLC; and The Jimmy Legs
Group, LLC’s (collectively, “Movants”) Motion for Certification Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) [337]. After reviewing the record, the
Court enters the following Order.
Background
On April 17, 2012, this Court, having found that Movants’ claims were
not timely filed, entered summary judgment against Movants on Counts I, II,
and III of the Complaint. Movants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
Order, which was denied by this Court on August 3, 2012. Movants appealed
the Order. The Eleventh Circuit, sua sponte, ordered the appeal dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction, determining that the appeal was not from a “final order” in
the underlying case. Accordingly, Movants now seek a certification from this
Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54(b) so that they may
proceed with their appeal.
Discussion
As a result of this Court’s April 17, 2012 Order, Movants’ claims were
extinguished. However, claims of other Plaintiffs in the case are pending, along
with certain counterclaims and cross-claims, all of which must be resolved
before a final judgment can be entered in the case. Movants argue that this will
force them to wait many months before they can appeal the Court’s Order
against them. Given that the claims of Movants and the remaining Plaintiffs
involve many of the same parties, witnesses, and evidence, Movants assert that
it would be more efficient for Movants to proceed with an immediate appeal so
that if the Court’s decision is reversed, Movants can rejoin the litigation. Even
if Movants are not able to rejoin and participate in the litigation, they argue,
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
there is nothing at issue in the case that warrants delay of a final resolution of
Movants’ claims.
Rule 54(b) provides:
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. . . .
“The Rule provides an exception to the general principle that a final judgment is
proper only after the rights and liabilities of all the parties to the action have
been adjudicated.” Ebrahimi v. City of Huntsville Bd. of Educ., 114 F.3d 162,
165 (11th Cir. 1997). “Rule 54(b) certifications must be reserved for the
unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the number of
proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by
pressing needs of the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some
claims or parties.” Id. at 166 (internal quotations and citations omitted). “As a
prerequisite to Rule 54(b) certification, the district court must evaluate whether
there is any just reason to delay the appeal of individual final judgments.” Id. at
3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
165. “The question requires the district court to balance judicial administrative
interests and relevant equitable concerns.” Id. at 165-66.
Movants argue that there is no danger of “piecemeal appeals” here
because Movants’ appeal is wholly unique and in no way applies to other
Plaintiffs in the case. Further, they contend, the interests of judicial
administration favor Movants’ immediate appeal because the discrete issue on
appeal – whether Movants had inquiry notice that triggered their claims – is not
dependant upon resolution of any remaining claims in the case, and if Movants’
appeal is successful, it would be more efficient to try all of the Plaintiffs’ claims
at once. If Movants’ appeal is unsuccessful, on the other hand, Movants will
not be part of the case and the remaining claims and issues will not be affected.
Finally, they argue, if the Court decides not to issue a Rule 54(b) certification
and the Court’s Order is reversed on appeal, the Court could potentially have to
conduct a separate trial on Movants’ claims, which would be a wasted of time
and resources, and place an undue burden on other parties and witnesses in the
case.
The Court agrees with Movants that the interests of efficiency and
judicial administration favor immediate appeal in this case. The Court finds no
4
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
just reason to delay the appeal of the final judgment against Movants.
Therefore, Movants’ Motion for Certification Pursuant to Rule 54(b) is
GRANTED.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Movant’s Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification
[337] is GRANTED. The Clerk is ORDERED to enter final judgment in favor
of Defendants and against Plaintiffs David Titshaw; Taylor Investment Partners
II, LLC d/b/a Tip II Ansley, LLC and Tip II Suburban, LLC; Rounding Third,
LLC; 3M Restaurants, LLC; and The Jimmy Legs Group, LLC’s.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of May, 2013.
_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)
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?