Mountain View Hospital, L.L.C. v. Sahara, Inc. et al

Filing 461

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 400 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MOUNTAIN VIEW HOSPITAL, L.L.C., an
Idaho limited liability company,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 4:07-cv-00464-BLW

v.
SAHARA, INC., a Utah corporation; DAVIS
PARTNERSHIP, P.C., a Colorado
corporation; JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
SAHARA, INC., a Utah corporation,
Cross Claim Plaintiff and
Counterclaim Defendant,
v.
DAVIS PARTNERSHIP, P.C., a Colorado
corporation,
Cross Claim Defendant and
Counterclaim Plaintiff.
_____________________________________
SAHARA, INC., a Utah corporation,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

THE BALLARD GROUP, a Colorado
corporation, UNITED TEAM
MECHANICAL, LLC, a Utah limited
liability company, E.K. BAILEY
CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Utah corporation,
and ENCOMPASS SERVICES
CORPORATION, a Utah corporation,
Third-Party Defendants.
_____________________________________
UNITED TEAM MECHANICAL, LLC, a
Utah limited liability company,
Counterclaim Defendant and
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
BINGHAM MECHANICAL, INC., an Idaho
corporation; DIAMOND TEST &
BALANCE, INC., a Utah corporation; and
SIEMENS, an Idaho corporation,
Third-Party Defendants.

Before the Court is the motion for Rule 54(b) certification filed by Defendant
Encompass Services Corporation (Dkt. 400). For the reasons set forth below, the Court
will deny the motion.
ANALYSIS
Encompass brings its motion for entry of judgment under Rule 54(b). When more
than one claim for relief is presented to a court, Rule 54(b) allows that court to “direct the
entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only
upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

direction for the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(b). The Court must first
determine whether it has “rendered a final judgment, that is, a judgment that is an
ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims
action.” Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC, 422 F.3d 873, 878 (9th Cir. 2005).
All claims against Encompass have been finally and completely resolved. On
September 30, 2011, the Court granted Encompass’ Motion for Summary Judgment,
stating, in part, that “Sahara was not a known creditor, thus notice of Encompass’s
bankruptcy to Sahara by publication was sufficient, and Sahara’s claims against
Encompass were discharged in bankruptcy.” Memorandum Decision and Order, filed
Sept. 30, 2011 at 5, Dkt. 398. By dismissing all claims against Encompass, the Court has
rendered a final disposition of all claims against it.
The Court must next determine whether “there is any just reason for delay.”
Wood, 422 F.3d at 878. This determination involves an inquiry into “the interest of
sound judicial administration” and a weighing of the equities at stake. Id.
The interest of “sound judicial administration” primarily requires that the ultimate
decision “preserves the historic federal policy against piecemeal appeals.” Id. A Rule
54(b) request should not be granted when “the facts on all claims and issues entirely
overlap, and successive appeals are essentially inevitable.” Id. at 883. This Court must be
careful to “prevent piecemeal appeals in cases which should be reviewed only as single
units.” Id. at 879. Important factors include (1) whether certification would result in
unnecessary appellate review; (2) whether the claims finally adjudicated were separate,
distinct, and independent of any other claims; (3) whether review of the adjudicated
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

claims would be mooted by any future developments in the case; and (4) whether an
appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once even if there were
subsequent appeals. Id.
Here, everyone agrees that the bankruptcy issue is unique to Encompass, but
Encompass also raised common defenses. Encompass argued that both Saraha’s contract
and tort claims against it were barred by the statute of limitations. The Court agreed and
dismissed the contract claims and tort claims based on the statute of limitations. Other
parties, including Bingham, UTM, E.K. Bailey, and Siemens, also raised a statute of
limitations defense on their contract and tort claims. Because the facts and issues
presented by these common defenses overlap and will likely lead to successive appeals,
the interests of judicial administration counsel against certifying the claims against
Encompass.
Encompass responds that the facts each of the parties relied on to support their
statute of limitations defense “were either undisputed or unique to Encompass.”
Specifically, Encompass states that Sahara did not dispute either the accrual date or the
filing date, and therefore “it is difficult to imagine a basis upon which Sahara could
appeal this decision” that the contract claims and tort claims were barred. Encompass
Resp. at 6, Dkt. 413. Yet, simply because Encompass cannot imagine a basis for Sahara
to appeal the Court’s decision regarding Encompass’s statute of limitations defense does
not mean that Sahara will not find one. Thus, entry of judgment in favor of Encompass
could result in piecemeal appeals of related issues.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

While the Court is not unsympathetic to Encompass’s request, there exists “a longsettled and prudential policy against the scattershot disposition of litigation.” Spiegel v.
Trustees of Tufts College, 843 F.2d 38, 42 (9th Cir.1988) (citations omitted). “[E]ntry of
judgment under [Rule 54(b)] should not be indulged as a matter of routine or as a
magnanimous accommodation to lawyers or litigants.” Thus, while the decision to grant
Rule 54(b) certification is a matter of the court's discretion, the Ninth Circuit has advised
that “[j]udgments under Rule 54(b) 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.” Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer,
655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981).
This case is not one of those unusual cases that warrant an immediate Rule 54(b)
entry of judgment. As noted above, granting immediate judgment presents a danger of
piecemeal appeals. Moreover, trial is set only a few short months away, on May 3, 2012,
and will conclude at the beginning of June. Judgment will be entered soon after the
verdict is rendered, which will trigger the time for filing post-trial motions, and
Encompass can then file its motion for fees and costs. Fed.R.Civ.P. 58. Contrary to
Encompass’s fears, it will not have to wait a year after the conclusion of trial to seek
attorney fees and costs.
If there is a mistrial or need to vacate and reschedule the trial date, as Encompass
hypothesizes, the Court may reconsider this decision if and when those circumstances

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

arise. Until then, the Court finds that motion for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b)
should be denied.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification (Dkt. 400) is
DENIED.

DATED: February 7, 2012

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6