Camsoft Data Systems, Inc. v. Southern Electronics Supply, Inc. et al

Filing 307

RULING denying 296 Motion for Certification of Judgment. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 7/5/2011. (LSM) Modified on 7/6/2011 to edit text (LSM).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CAMSOFT DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 09-1047-JJB
SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS SUPPLY,
INC., ET AL.
RULING
This matter is before the court on a motion (doc. 296) for certification of
judgment under Rule 54(b) or alternatively for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b), filed by First Financial Insurance Company (“First Financial”). Third
party plaintiffs Active Solutions, LLC, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Henry Burkhardt
(collectively “Active”) have filed an opposition (doc. 306) to this motion. Oral
argument is not necessary.
First Financial asks the Court to permit an interlocutory appeal of this
court‟s May 6, 2011 ruling that First Financial has a “duty to defend” Active. The
ruling was on a motion for partial summary judgment. First Financial moves the
court to direct entry of final judgment on the “duty to defend” claim pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Alternatively, First Financial requests that the Court certify
the partial summary judgment as immediately appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(b).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that when a lawsuit
involves more than one claim for relief or when multiple parties are involved, the

1

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. Rule 54(b) “was not designed to overturn the settled federal
rule against piecemeal appeals. It grants „a discretionary power to afford a
remedy in the infrequent harsh case.‟” Jasmin v. Dumas, 726 F.2d 242, 244 (5th
Cir. 1984). In Landry v. G.B.A., 762 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1985), the Fifth Circuit held
that Rule 54(b) did not apply to a judgment or order which disposed only of the
duty to defend and not the requested fees or penalties for having breached that
duty. In the interest of following the federal rule against piecemeal appeals, the
court declines First Financial‟s request to direct entry of final judgment on the
limited issue of First Financial‟s duty to defend Active.
First Financial argues, alternatively, for an immediate appeal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). To certify an interlocutory appeal under §1292(b), the court
must find that the order (1) involves a controlling question of law, (2) as to which
there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and (3) that an immediate
appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
Regardless of whether or not the court agrees with First Financial on the first two
elements required for 1292(b) certification, First Financial has certainly not
established that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate
termination of this litigation. Indeed, the court finds that an immediate appeal on
this limited issue would not materially advance the ultimate termination of this
litigation. As such, the court will not grant §1292(b) certification.
2

Accordingly, First Financial‟s motion (doc. 296) for certification of judgment
is HEREBY DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 5, 2011.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3