Simon v. Grand Isle Shipyard Inc. et al
Filing
67
ORDER AND REASONS granting 66 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc. is hereby dismissed with prejudice from the above-captioned matter. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 08/25/2022. (ko)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JAMIE SIMON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
No. 11-1432
GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD, INC., ET AL.
SECTION I
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc.’s (“GIS”) unopposed
motion 1 for entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). GIS
argues that it should be dismissed from the above-captioned matter because the
Court recently granted GIS’s motions for summary judgment. 2 Plaintiff specifically
stated that she had no opposition to those motions. 3 Plaintiff has asserted no other
claims against GIS. 4
Plaintiff asserted claims against GIS pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 688 (“The Jones
Act”) and 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. (“Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act”
or “LHWCA”). This Court granted summary judgment for GIS on both the Jones Act
claim 5 and the LHWCA claim. 6
R. Doc. No. 66.
R. Doc. Nos. 59, 65.
3 R. Doc. No. 56 (stating no opposition to summary judgment as to the Jones Act
claim); R. Doc. No. 63 (stating no opposition to summary judgment as to the LHWCA
claim).
4 R. Doc. No. 66-1, at 2.
5 R. Doc. No. 59.
6 R. Doc. No. 65.
1
2
In pertinent part, Rule 54(b) states that “[w]hen an action presents more than
one claim for relief . . . or when multiple parties are involved, 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 “is an exception to the general rule that a final judgment is
appealable only after the adjudication of the rights and liabilities of all parties to a
proceeding.” Akeem v. Dasmen Residential, LLC., No. 19-13650, 2021 WL 4806913,
at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 14, 2021) (Ashe, J.). Rule 54(b) judgments are disfavored and
should be granted “only when there exists some danger of hardship or injustice
through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal,” and not “as a courtesy
to counsel.” PYCA Inds., Inc. v. Harrison Cnty. Waste Water Mgmt. Dist., 81 F.3d
1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996). In considering such a motion, the district court must
“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 Loc. Union v.
Continental Sprinkler Co., 967 F.3d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 1992) (quoting Dickinson v.
Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U.S. 507, 511 (1950)).
In order to properly enter a Rule 54(b) final judgment, two prerequisites must
be met. First, the court must have fully disposed of one or more claims or parties.
Eldredge v. Martin Marietta Corp., 207 F.3d 737, 740 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b)). When a court grants summary judgment on all claims against a given
party, that party is fully disposed of for purposes of Rule 54(b). Ruello v. J.P. Morgan
Chase Bank, N.A., No. 20-895, 2022 WL 219051, at *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 25, 2022) (Vance,
2
J.) (citing Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980)). Second, the court
must determine that there is no just reason for delay. Id. at 740, n.1. This prerequisite
is satisfied “only when there exists some danger of hardship or injustice through
delay.” PYCA Inds., Inc., 81 F.3d at 1421.
As to the first prerequisite, the Court has made a final judgment as to GIS,
since all claims against GIS have been dismissed by summary judgment. As to the
second prerequisite, the Court finds there is no just reason for delay. As GIS notes,
the policy against piecemeal appeals is “not implicated” here because plaintiff did not
oppose GIS’s motions for summary judgment. 7 Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and Grand Isle Shipyard,
Inc. is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from the above-captioned matter.
New Orleans, Louisiana, August 25, 2022.
_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7
R. Doc. No. 66-1, at 3.
3
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?