Donahue et al v. Republic National Distributing Company, LLC et al
Filing
259
ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that Motions to Certify this Court's August 30, 2018 Order and Reasons as a Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) by Defendants W&H Systems, Inc. and Darana Hybrid, Inc. (Rec. Docs. 256 and 257 ) are DENIED, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on 3/19/2019. (sa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSHUA DONAHUE ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 16-13948
REPUBLIC NATIONAL DISTRIBUTING
COMPANY, LLC ET AL.
SECTION: “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are Motions to Certify this Court’s August 30, 2018
Order and Reasons as a Final Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) by Defendants
W&H Systems, Inc. (W&H”) and Darana Hybrid, Inc. (“Darana”) (Docs. 256,
257). For the following reasons, the Motions are DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This lawsuit arises out of injuries that Plaintiff Joshua Donahue suffered
while working to repair a conveyor system at the alcohol distribution
warehouse of Defendant Republic National Distributing Company, LLC
(“Republic”) in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. 1 Defendants in the suit included
W&H, the contractor hired by Republic to repair the conveyor system, and
Darana, the contractor hired by W&H to provide electrical work for the repair
project.
On May 8, 2018, W&H and Darana moved for summary judgment
arguing that they were immune from Plaintiffs’ claims as his “statutory
1
The other Plaintiff in this suit is Angela Bolton. She seeks loss of consortium damages that
she allegedly suffered because of Donahue’s injuries.
1
employer” under Louisiana law. 2 On August 30, 2018, the Court granted those
motions and dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants
W&H and Darana. Several weeks later, Defendant Republic moved for
summary judgment arguing that it enjoyed the same immunity that protected
W&H and Darana from Plaintiffs’ claims. On October 29, 2018, the Court
denied Republic’s motion, explaining why, unlike W&H and Darana, Republic
did not enjoy immunity from Plaintiffs’ tort claims as a statutory employer of
Plaintiff Donahue. 3 Republic then moved to certify this Court’s October 29,
2018 Order and Reasons as an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b). On January 8, 2019, the Court denied Republic’s request. 4
Defendants W&H and Darana now seek an order from this Court that
certifies the Court’s August 30, 2018 Order and Reasons as a final, appealable
judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs
oppose.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether
as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—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.
The issue before this Court, then, is whether there is “no just reason” to delay
certifying as a final judgment the Court’s August 30, 2018 Order and Reasons
dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants W&H and Darana.
2
3
4
See LA. REV. STAT. § 23:1061.
See Doc. 244.
See Doc. 255.
2
Here, Movants have failed to show that “no just reason” exists to delay
certification. According to the Fifth Circuit, “[o]ne of the primary policies
behind requiring a justification for Rule 54(b) certification is to avoid piecemeal
appeals.” 5 Considering this policy, “[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; it should not be entered
routinely as a courtesy to counsel.” 6 In this case, Movants have failed to make
a compelling showing of significant hardship caused by a delay in certification.
Moreover, it would be a waste of judicial resources for the Fifth Circuit to be
called to review facts on appeal where the Circuit may be required to review
the same facts following trial of the unadjudicated claims in this case. This is
the exact type of situation that warrants delaying certification of final
judgment under Rule 54(b). 7
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motions are DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 19th day of March, 2019.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
PYCA Indus., Inc. v. Harrison Cty. Waste Mgmt., 81 F.3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996).
Id.
See id.
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?