Singh, Ph.D v. Cordle, Ph.D et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The plaintiff's motion for leave to take interlocutory appeal 134 is construed as a motion for Rule 54(b) certification and is granted. It is further ordered that the Court's October 12, 2017 Memorandum and Order is final under Rule 54(b) with respect to all claims and issues on which the court granted summary judgment. Signed by District Judge John W. Lungstrum on 11/14/2017. (ses)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Rajesh Singh, Ph.D.,
Case No. 15-cv-9369-JWL
Michael D. Shonrock, Ph.D.; David P. Cordle, Ph.D.;
Gwen Alexander, Ph.D.; Andrew J.M. Smith, Ph.D.;
and Emporia State University,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Plaintiff Rajesh Singh, Ph.D., was employed as an assistant professor at Emporia State
University on a series of one-year probationary “term” appointments. After plaintiff served five
years of a six-year probationary period, the University decided not to renew plaintiff’s
probationary appointment and offered plaintiff a one-year “terminal” appointment. Plaintiff
accepted that offer and his employment terminated at the end of that contract term. He filed a
lawsuit alleging that Emporia State University failed to renew his appointment on the basis of
his race, color and/or national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, K.S.A. § 44-1001 et seq.;
and that the individual defendants violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection
and due process and retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment free-speech
rights. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
On October 12, 2017, the court issued a Memorandum and Order in which it rejected
defendant Cordle’s qualified immunity defense as to plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation
claim and denied summary judgment on that claim. The court granted the motion in all other
respects. Defendant Cordle filed a notice of interlocutory appeal. This matter is presently
before the court on plaintiff’s motion for leave to take interlocutory appeal. The motion is
unopposed. As will be explained, the motion, which the court construes as a motion for
certification under Rule 54(b), is granted.
In his motion, plaintiff asserts that it is more efficient for the Circuit to address issues that
plaintiff intends to appeal at this juncture rather than in a separate subsequent appeal. The court
agrees. The only remaining claim in this case is currently on appeal such that the case is stayed
in any event and it makes sense for the Circuit to review at this time all the issues that the parties
intend to appeal. In his motion, however, plaintiff asks the court to make findings required by
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) so that he may pursue his appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) provides as follows:
When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise
appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a
controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The
Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may
thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if
application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided,
however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in
the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge
thereof shall so order.
Id.; see also Rural Water Dist. No. 4 v. City of Eudora, 720 F.3d 1269, 1278 (10th Cir. 2013).
The court does not believe that the issues asserted by plaintiff in his motion are ones as to which
there is “substantial ground for difference of opinion.” Nonetheless, the court, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), will certify its October 12, 2017 ruling as a final
judgment so that plaintiff may pursue an appeal of those issues.
Rule 54(b) provides in pertinent part:
When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
This rule “preserves the historic federal policy against piecemeal
appeals—a policy that promotes judicial efficiency, expedites the ultimate termination of an
action and relieves appellate courts of the need to repeatedly familiarize themselves with the
facts of a case.” See Oklahoma Turnpike Auth. v. Bruner, 259 F.3d 1236, 1241 (10th Cir. 2001)
(citation and internal quotation omitted).
Rule 54(b) entries are not to be made routinely. Indeed, trial courts should be
reluctant to enter Rule 54(b) orders since the purpose of this rule is a limited one:
to provide a recourse for litigants when dismissal of less than all their claims will
create undue hardships. Thus, a certification under Rule 54(b) is only appropriate
when a district court adheres strictly to the rule’s requirement that a court make
two express determinations. First, the district court must determine that the order
it is certifying is a final order. Second, the district court must determine that there
is no just reason to delay review of the final order until it has conclusively ruled on
all claims presented by the parties to the case.
See id. at 1242 (citations and internal quotations omitted).
In making these determinations, the district court should act as a “dispatcher”
weighing Rule 54(b)’s policy of preventing piecemeal appeals against the
inequities that could result from delaying an appeal. Factors the district court
should consider are whether the claims under review are separable from the others
remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the claims already
determined are such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues
more than once even if there were subsequent appeals.
See Stockman’s Water Co. v. Vaca Partners, L.P., 425 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir. 2005)
(citations and internal quotations omitted).
Because defendant Cordle has already filed an appeal as to the one remaining claim in
this case and the court granted summary judgment on all other claims, there is no just reason to
delay here and an immediate appeal in this context promotes efficiency for the Circuit and the
parties. Moreover, the claims that plaintiff seeks to appeal are entirely separate from the one
claim that remains to be adjudicated—and, as noted, that one claim is on appeal in any event. In
such circumstances, the court concludes that Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate and it
certifies its October 17, 2017 Memorandum and Order as a final order as to all claims and issues
on which the court granted summary judgment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff’s motion for
leave to take interlocutory appeal is construed as a motion for Rule 54(b) certification and is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT its October 12, 2017
Memorandum and Order is final under Rule 54(b) with respect to all claims and issues on which
the court granted summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 14th day of November, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ John W. Lungstrum
John W. Lungstrum
United States District Judge
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?