Frye et al v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company et al

Filing 100

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 93 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability by Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 7/8/2015. (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DEE FRYE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE
CO., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:13-CV-113

OPINION AND ORDER
This

matter

is

before

the

Court

on

the

Motion

for

Certification of Final Judgment, filed by Defendant, Nationwide
Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”), on June 4, 2015.
#93.)

(DE

For the reasons set forth below, this motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND
On February 15, 2015, this Court entered summary judgment in
favor of Nationwide and dismissed it from this case.

(DE #88.)

However, the claims against co-Defendant, Auto-Owners Insurance
Company (“Auto Owners”), currently remain pending.

(Id.)

Citing

only to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and providing no
argument or analysis whatsoever, Nationwide now asks this Court to
construe the aforementioned order as a final judgment against it
and expressly determine that there is no just reason for delay
associated with the entry of final judgment.

(DE #93.)

DISCUSSION
“When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . .
or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry
of a final judgment . . . only if the court expressly determines
that there is no just reason for delay.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

The decision of whether to grant final judgment under Rule 54(b) is
“left to the sound judicial discretion of the district court.”
Curtiss-Wright v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 10 (1980).
In

making

this

determination,

the

district

court

must

determine that it is dealing with a “final judgment,” which is an
ultimate disposition of an individual, cognizable claim for relief
entered in the course of a multiple claims action.

Id.

The court

must then determine whether there are no just reasons to delay the
appeal

of

the

final

judgment,

taking

into

account

judicial

administrative interests as well as the equities involved.

Id.

Rule 54(b) allows defendants to determine at the earliest possible
opportunity whether they may stop defending against claims or
plaintiffs. Continental Cas. Co. v. Anderson Excavating & Wrecking
Co., 189 F.3d 512, 518 (7th Cir. 1999).

However, a defendant’s

interest in finality can be outweighed by the duplicative work
arising from successive appeals if the claims remaining in the
district court are not sufficiently distinct from the claims given
finality under Rule 54(b).

Lottie v. West American Insurance Co.,

of Ohio Casualty Group of Insurance Cos., 408 F.3d 935, 938 (7th
Cir. 2005) (noting that “Rule 54(b) be employed only when the

subjects

of

the

partial

judgment

do

not

overlap

with

those

remaining in the district court.”).
Here, the Court finds that the dismissed claims are not
sufficiently separate and distinct – both legally and factually —
to warrant granting the motion.

Nationwide has not described why

its interest in finality would outweigh the concerns of judicial
economy that would arise by the duplicative work from successive
appeals of the dismissed and pending claims.

Therefore, the Court

cannot conclude that there is no just reason for delay.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this motion is DENIED.

DATED: July 8, 2015

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court