Securities and Exchange Commission v. Alleca et al

Filing 116

OPINION AND ORDER granting 114 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because there is no just cause for delay, the Court's October 15, 2015, Opinion and Order 113 is a final, appealable decision of the Court within the meaning of Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/16/2016. (anc)

The Agreement defines a “Final Order” as an order “as to which the time to
appeal or seek reconsideration or rehearing thereof has expired.” (Id. ¶ 3.2 n. 1).
After concluding that the Court’s October 15, 2015, Order is not final under this
definition, Federal informed the Receiver that “its obligation to pay the settlement
consideration was not triggered by the October 15 Order.” (Motion for Final
Judgment at 3). On December 18, 2015, the Receiver filed his Motion for Final
Judgment, seeking “an amendment that adds language making the October 15
Order final under” Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule
54(b)”). (Motion for Final Judgment at 1-2).
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standard

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.
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 and may be revised at any time before the entry of a
judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and
liabilities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). “The Rule provides an exception to the general
2

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).
“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.
The question requires the district court to balance judicial administrative interests
and relevant equitable concerns. Id. at 165-66 (citation omitted). “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 (citing
Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981) (Kennedy,
J.)). “[T]he decision to certify is committed to the sound judicial discretion of the
district court.” Id.
B.

Analysis

The Court finds that the settling parties intended the October 15, 2015,
Order to be a final judgment under Rule 54(b). The Receiver previously filed a
proposed order [103.1 at Ex. C], approved by Federal, that includes the following
language: “There being no just reason for delay, this Order is, and is intended to
3

be, a final, appealable decision of the Court within the meaning of Rule 54(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Proposed Order [103.1 at Ex. C] at 6;
Motion for Final Judgment at 2-5). Federal also did not respond to the Receiver’s
Motion for Final Judgment, which “indicate[s] that there is no opposition to the
motion.” LR 7.1(B), NDGa.
It is not uncommon for settlement agreements, between a receiver and an
insurer, to condition payment on a final court order. Federal courts often include
Rule 54(b) language in orders approving such agreements. See S.E.C. v. Parish,
2:07-cv-919, slip op. at 9 (D.S.C. May 12, 2008) (“This court finds that there is no
just reason for delay for an entry of a final judgment as to the approval of the
settlement and bar order and directs the entry of judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(b).”); S.E.C. v. Kaleta, 4:09-cv-3674, slip op. at 6 (S.D. Tex. June 11, 2013)
(“There being no just cause for delay, this Order is, and is intended to be, a final,
appealable decision of the Court within the meaning of Rule 54(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.”). This language can prevent delays in the receiver
collecting and distributing the settlement amount.
Federal’s payment obligation triggers when the Bar Order becomes final and
not subject to further appeal or collateral attack. To prevent delays in the Receiver
collecting and distributing the Settlement proceeds, the Court concludes that the
4

Receiver’s Motion for Final Judgment should be granted.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Receiver’s Motion for Entry of

Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) [114] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because there is no just cause for delay,
the Court’s October 15, 2015, Opinion and Order [113] is a final, appealable
decision of the Court within the meaning of Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED this 16th day of May, 2016.

_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5