Firefighters' Retirement System et al v. Citco Group Limited et al
Filing
1005
RULING granting 1000 Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 10/15/2020. (SWE)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
FIREFIGHTERS’ RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
13-373-SDD-EWD
CITCO GROUP LIMITED, ET AL.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification1 filed by
Plaintiffs Firefighters’ Retirement System, Municipal Employees’ Retirement System of
Louisiana, and New Orleans Firefighters’ Pension & Relief Fund (collectively, “Plaintiffs”
or “the Louisiana Funds”). Defendants, Citco Banking Corporation N.V., The Citco Group
Limited, Citco Fund Services (Cayman Islands) Limited, and Citco Technology
Management (collectively, “the Citco Defendants”) filed a Statement in Response2
indicating that they do not oppose the motion. The Louisiana Funds also filed a Notice
Regarding Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification.3 For the reasons that follow, the Court finds
that the Louisiana Funds’ Motion shall be GRANTED.
On February 7, 2019, this Court issued a Judgment dismissing all of the Louisiana
Funds’ claims against the Citco Defendants with prejudice.4 This Court subsequently
issued an Amended Judgment which, in addition to dismissing the Funds’ claims against
the Citco Defendants with prejudice, dismissed the counterclaims of Defendant Citco
1
Rec. Doc. No. 1000.
Rec. Doc. No. 1003.
3
Rec. Doc. No. 1004.
4
Rec. Doc. No. 958.
2
62950
Fund Services (Cayman Islands) with prejudice.5 The Louisiana Funds appealed this
Court’s dismissal of their claims against the Citco Defendants to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.6 On July 7, 2020, the Fifth Circuit entered a judgment
dismissing the Louisiana Funds’ appeal “for want of appellate jurisdiction.”7 Specifically,
the Fifth Circuit held that there was no final, appealable decision in this matter because
the Funds had voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their claims against Defendant Lisa
Alexander8 and “there is no final decision if a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a defendant
without prejudice, because the plaintiff ‘is entitled to bring a later suit on the same cause
of action.’”9
In May 2020, two months before the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Louisiana Funds’
appeal, it issued an en banc decision in Williams v. Seidenbach. In Williams, the Fifth
Circuit discussed the possibility that “when a plaintiff sues two defendants, and then
voluntarily dismisses one defendant without prejudice, while litigating against the other to
conclusion. . .the plaintiff may fall into a ‘finality trap’—unable to obtain an appealable
final decision, despite having lost to the second defendant.”10 The Fifth Circuit noted that
“established rules of civil procedure provide many tools to avoid that alleged ‘trap,’”11
including entry of a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b). Ultimately, the Williams court
held that an appeal can properly proceed based on the district court’s entry of partial final
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
5
Rec. Doc. No. 968.
Rec. Doc. Nos. 969, 982.
7
Rec. Doc. No. 999, p. 4.
8
Rec. Doc. No. 941.
9
Id. at p. 1 (citing Williams v. Seidenbach, 958 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir. 2020)(en banc)(quoting Ryan v.
Occidental Petroleum Corp., 577 F.2d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 1978)).
10
Williams, 958 F.3d at 343.
11
Id. at 344.
6
62950
In the Fifth Circuit’s denial of the Louisiana Funds’ appeal, the court noted that it
did not decide how or whether Williams would apply to the instant case.12 But the court
analogized the facts of this case to Williams, stating that
The only difference between this case and Williams is the order of
dismissals after the adverse decision. In Williams, the voluntary dismissal
without prejudice disposed of all remaining defendants in the case. Here,
the Funds voluntarily dismissed one defendant without prejudice and then
adjudicated their claims against other defendants. But that is a distinction
without a difference. The Funds sought to render an interlocutory decision
appealable by dismissing at least one defendant without prejudice. And
under Williams, that means—absent some further act like a Rule 54(b)
certification—there is no final, appealable decision.13
In light of Williams, the Louisiana Funds now request that this Court issue “a Rule
54(b) order certifying the Citco Judgment as a partial final judgment.”14 Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(b) states:
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 determination of whether “there is no just reason for delay” lies “within the sound
discretion of the district court.”15 In making its determination, 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.’”16 Additionally, the Fifth Circuit held in
PYCA Indus., Inc. v. Harrison County Waste Water Mgmt. Dist. that “[a] district court
12
Rec. Doc. No. 999, p. 2, n. 1.
Id. at p. 4. (internal citations omitted).
14
Rec. Doc. No. 1000-2, p. 5.
15
Ichinose v. Travelers Flood Ins., 2007 WL 1799673, *2 (E.D.La. 6/21/07).
16
Ichinose v. Travelers Flood Ins., 2007 WL 1799673, *2 (E.D.La. 6/21/07) (citing Road Sprinkler Fitters
Local Union v. Continental Sprinkler Co., 967 F.2d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 1992)(quoting Dickinson v. Petroleum
Conversion Corp., 338 U.S. 507, 511, 70 S.Ct. 322, 324 (1950)).
13
62950
should grant certification [under 54(b)] only when there exists some danger of hardship
or injustice through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal.”17 The
Louisiana Funds argue that failing to certify a partial final judgment will cause them to
“suffer an injustice and hardship because the judgments against the Citco Defendants will
not be appealable to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.”18 Moreover, they aver, they
are facing hardship in the form of “financial difficulties because of the pressure the
pandemic has created on municipalities.”19 As stated above, the Citco Defendants do not
oppose the requested relief. Overall, the Court finds that the entry of a partial final
judgment is appropriate in this case. The Court’s previous Judgment and Amended
Judgment dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims asserted in this matter against the Citco
Defendants, and are, therefore, an ultimate disposition of all of Plaintiffs’ claims as to
these Defendants. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Judgment and Amended
Judgment are final judgments as to the claims asserted against the Citco Defendants and
that there is no just reason for delay, especially given that this action was initially filed
more than seven years ago, in March 2013.20 Accordingly, the Louisiana Funds’ Motion
for Rule 54(b) Certification21 is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on October 15, 2020.
S
CHIEF JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
17
81 F. 3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996).
Rec. Doc. No. 1000-2, p. 9.
19
Rec. Doc. No. 1004, p. 2.
20
Rec. Doc. No. 1-3.
21
Rec. Doc. No. 1000.
18
62950
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?