Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corporation et al

Filing 135

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 123 Motion to Request Final Judgment UnderRule 58(b)(1)(C) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 110 motion to Request Rule 54 Judgment is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 3/20/2017. (Reference: All Cases)(mmv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TARSIA WILLIAMS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 09-65

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, ET AL.

SECTION “B”(2)

ORDER AND REASONS
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Request Final Judgment Under
Rule 58(b)(1)(C) (Rec. Doc. 123) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that the motion to Request Rule 54 Judgment (Rec. Doc. 110) is
DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Request

Rule

Before this Court are the parties’ “Motion to

54

Judgment”

(Rec.

Doc.

110),

“Objection

to

Plaintiff’s Ex Parte/Consent Motion to Request Rule 54 Judgment”
(Rec.

Doc.

111),

“Lockheed

Martin

Corporation’s

Supplemental

Objection to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte/Consent Motion to Request Rule
54 Judgement” (Rec. Doc. 120), “Motion to Request Final Judgment
Under

Rule

Plaintiffs’

58(b)(1)(C)”
Motion

to

(Rec.

Request

Doc.
Final

123),
Judgment

“Opposition
Under

Rule

to
58

(b)(1)(C)” (Rec. Doc. 126), and “Lockheed Martin Corporation’s
Joinder in Boeing Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Request Final
Judgment Under Rule 58(b)(1)(c)” (Rec. Doc. 128).
Defendants argue that this motion is improper procedurally
because

some

of

the

Defendants

have

been

dismissed

without

prejudice. In addition, the Defendants contend that seeking a final

judgment should not be accomplished through an Ex Parte motion.
This Court finds both of these arguments to be without merit.
First, the Fifth Circuit has held that “although a voluntary
dismissal without prejudice . . . does not have preclusive effect
on later claims, such a dismissal is a final judgment in the sense
that it ends the pending action.” Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church,
727 F.3d 356, 360 (5th Cir. 2013). Therefore this Court finds that
the

defendants

listed

in

the

Plaintiff’s

motions

that

were

dismissed without prejudice satisfy the rule 58 requirements for
entry of a final judgment. In addition, Defendants’ contention
that Plaintiffs’ motion is procedurally improper because it is Ex
Parte

is

without

merit.

Local

Rule

7.3

does

not

provide

an

exhaustive list of what types of motions can be brought before the
court

using

Ex

Parte

motions.

Defendant

does

not

cite

any

controlling authority that demonstrates that final judgment should
never be entered through Ex Parte motions.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of March, 2017.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2