Nogess v. Poydras Center, LLC, et al
Filing
208
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the 206 Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Final Judgment filed by Defendant Clampett Industries, LLC d/b/a EMG is GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 205 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Regarding Summary Judgment in Favor of Velocity Consulting, Inc. filed by Defendant Velocity Consulting, Inc. is GRANTED, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/7/2018. (Reference: All Cases)(jls)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MICHELLE NOGESS
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-15227
c/w 16-15234
POYDRAS CENTER, LLC et al.
SECTION: A (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Final Judgment (Rec. Doc. 206)
filed by Defendant Clampett Industries, LLC d/b/a EMG (“EMG”). Also before the Court is a
Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Regarding Summary Judgment in Favor of Velocity
Consulting, Inc. (Rec. Doc. 205) filed by Defendant Velocity Consulting, Inc. (“Velocity”).
Neither motion is opposed. The motions, set for submission on July 25, 2018, are before the Court
on the briefs without oral argument. Having considered the motions, memoranda of counsel, the
record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that EMG’s Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Final
Judgment (Rec. Doc. 206) is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below. The Court further finds
that Velocity’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Regarding Summary Judgment in Favor
of Velocity Consulting, Inc. (Rec. Doc. 205) is GRANTED for the reasons set forth below.
In an action involving more than one claim for relief, or when multiple parties are involved,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) permits a district court to “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). Accordingly, the judgment must concern
a separate and distinct claim (or claims), and it must in fact be a final determination of that claim
(or claims). See N.W. Enter. Inc. v. City of Houston, 352 F.3d 162, 179 (5th Cir. 2003). The
decision whether or not to make a Rule 54(b) determination is “left to the sound judicial discretion
of the trial court.” Brown v. Mississippi Valley State University, 311 F.3d 328, 332 (5th Cir. 2002)
(citing Curtiss–Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) allows a district court to direct entry of final
judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, of the claims where multiple claims for relief are
presented in an action. However, in order to do so, the district court must make an express
determination that there is no just reason for delay and must expressly direct entry of judgment.
Rule 54(b) 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. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all
the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be
revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and
all the parties’ rights and liabilities.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
In granting a motion to certify judgment under Rule 54(b), a district court must make two
determinations. First, the district court must determine that “it is dealing with a ‘final judgment.’”
Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). The judgment is deemed final
if “it is ‘an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims
action.’” Id. at 7. The second finding the district court must make is that there is no just reason
for delay in the entry of final judgment. Id. at 8.
First, in assessing the propriety of entering final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the
district court must find that the ruling on which a finding of final judgment is sought is a
sufficiently “final” determination of a claim. See N.W. Enter. Inc, 352 F.3d at 179. The Court
notes its Order and Reasons from June 13, 2018. (Rec. Doc. 201). In its Order, this Court made
2
a ruling dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims against EMG and Velocity in this lawsuit. 1
The Court held that neither EMG nor Velocity owed a legal duty to the Plaintiff in rendering their
respective Property Condition Assessments. Therefore, the Court finds that its June 13, 2018
Order and Reasons is a final determination of all the claims in this suit involving EMG and
Velocity.
Secondly, the Court finds there is no just reason for delay in entering a final judgment on
these claims. The claims this Court previously dismissed against EMG and Velocity are distinct
and separate from any remaining claims in this lawsuit. The Court agrees with Velocity in finding
that there is no risk of piecemeal appeals. The claims against remaining Defendant Poydras Center
do not involve the issues on which this Court based its ruling dismissing the claims against EMG
and Velocity. Therefore, entering final judgment now would not create a risk that the Fifth Circuit
may have to decide the same issue more than once. Finally, the Court agrees with EMG in finding
that considerations of fairness and justice warrant the entry of final judgment as to EMG and
Velocity, so that these entities are not subjected to unnecessary expenses and hardships that may
arise through further protracted litigation.
For these reasons, the Court finds that there is no just reason for delay and enters final
judgment on its ruling dismissing Plaintiff’s claims brought against EMG and Velocity with
prejudice.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Final Judgment (Rec. Doc.
206) filed by Defendant Clampett Industries, LLC d/b/a EMG is GRANTED;
1
No cross-claims were brought against either EMG or Velocity. Nor did EMG or Velocity make any cross-claims,
counter-claims, or third party demands. Therefore, the Court’s June 13, 2018 Order and Reasons made a final
determination as to all claims involving EMG and Velocity.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Regarding
Summary Judgment in Favor of Velocity Consulting, Inc. (Rec. Doc. 205) filed by Defendant
Velocity Consulting, Inc. is GRANTED.
August 7, 2018
__________________________________________
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?