Serigny

Filing 145

ORDER AND REASONS granting 120 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon. (cbn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JACKIE B. SERIGNY
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF THE ESTATE OF WAYNE
SERIGNY

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 10-3205

LAFOURCHE PARISH
GOVERNMENT THROUGH
CHARLOTTE RANDOLPH PARISH
PRESIDENT, ET AL.

SECTION: "S" (2)

ORDER AND REASONS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Declare Judgment as Final (Doc.
#120) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking entry of a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this court’s August 16, 2012, Order and Reasons (Doc. #82),
in which the court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Charlotte Randolph, in her
capacity as Lafourche Parish President and the Lafourche Parish Government, dismissing all of
plaintiff's claims against them with prejudice. Plaintiff also seeks an entry of final judgment as to
this court's November 13, 2012, Order and Reasons (Doc. #94), denying plaintiff's motion to amend
the August 16, 2012 Order and Reasons. Plaintiff's claims against other defendants remain pending.
Rule 54(b) provides, in pertinent part:
when more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim,
counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are
involved, the court may 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 direction for the entry of judgment.

“One of the primary policies behind requiring a justification for Rule 54(b) certification is to avoid
piecemeal appeals. PYCA Industries, Inc. v. Harrison County Waste Water, 81 F.3d 1412, 1421
(5th Cir.1996) (citing Ansam Assocs., Inc. v. Cola Petroleum, Ltd., 760 F.2d 442, 445 (2nd
Cir.1985)). “A district court should grant certification only when there exists some danger of
hardship or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal.” Id. In
deciding whether there is no just reason for delay, the district court has a duty to weigh “the
inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review on the one hand and the danger of denying justice by
delay on the other.” Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union v. Continental Sprinkler Co., 967 F.2d 145,
148 (5th Cir.1992) (citation omitted).
This court finds that there is no just reason for delaying entry of a final judgment to allow
plaintiff to appeal the court’s August 16, 2012, Order and Reasons (Doc. #82) granting Randolph's
and the Lafourche Parish Government's motion for summary judgment, and this court's November
13, 12, Order and Reasons (Doc. #94) denying plaintiff's motion to amend the August 16, 2012,
Order and Reasons. Thus, plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment is GRANTED to avoid the
hardship and injustice that would result if this case proceeded to trial on the claims against the
remaining parties.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of March, 2013.
27th

____________________________________
MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2