Allen v. Gautreaux

Filing 25

RULING denying 20 Motion to Designate Rulings as Final and Appealable. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 4/14/2014. (SMG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ANTHONY ALLEN

CIVIL ACTION NO.

VERSUS

13-666-SDD-RLB

SID J. GAUTREAUX, III, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SHERIFF OF EAST
BATON ROUGE PARISH, MIKE KNAPPS,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF POLICE
OF THE CITY OF BAKER

RULING

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Designate Rulings as Final and
Appealable1 by Defendant, Sid Gautreaux, III, in his official capacity as Sheriff of East
Baton Rouge Parish. On January 31, 2014, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss filed
by this Defendant on the grounds that Plaintiff, Anthony Allen, failed to file an Opposition
as required by the Local Rules of Court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Court believed the motion had merit.2 For the following reasons, the Court does not believe
a Rule 54(b) certification is proper in this case at this time.
In PYCA Indus., Inc. v. Harrison County Waste Water Mgmt. Dist., the Fifth Circuit
stated:
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “the court
may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of
1

Rec. Doc. No. 20.

2

See Ruling, Rec. Doc. No. 9.

Doc 1335

1

the claims … only upon an express determination that there is no just reason
for delay and upon express direction for the entry of judgment.” … One of the
primary policies behind requiring a justification for Rule 54(b) certification is
to avoid piecemeal appeals. 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.3
The Court’s Ruling of January 31, 2014, dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims asserted
in this matter against the moving Defendant, and is, therefore, an ultimate disposition of all
of Plaintiff’s claims as to this Defendant. Accordingly, the Court concludes that it is a final
judgment as to the claims asserted against Sid Gautreaux, III, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish. The Court’s analysis, however, does not end here; the
Court must now determine whether there is any just reason for delay.4
The determination of whether “there is no just reason for delay” lies “within the
sound discretion of the district court.”5 However, “[n]ot all final judgments on individual
claims should be immediately appealable, even if they are in some sense separable from
the remaining unresolved claims.”6 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.’”7 One main factor that the court should
3

81 F. 3d 1412, 1421 (5th Cir. 1996)(citing Ansam Assocs., Inc. v. Cola Petroleum, Ltd., 760
F.2d 442, 445 (2d Cir. 1985))(emphasis added).
4
First American Title Co. v. Titan Title, LLC, 2012 WL 1065486, *1 (M.D.La. 3/28/02)(“Once
having found finality, the district court must go on to determine whether there is any just reason for
delay.”)
5

Ichinose v. Travelers Flood Ins., 2007 WL 1799673, *2 (E.D.La. 6/21/07).

6

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 1464, 64 L.Ed.2d
1 (1980)(citing Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 435, 76 S.Ct. 895, 899, 100 L.Ed.
1297 (1956)).
7

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)).
Doc 1335

2

consider is whether the appellate court “‘would have to decide the same issues more than
once even if there were subsequent appeals.’”8 “It is uneconomical for an appellate court
to review facts on appeal following a Rule 54(b) certification that it is likely to be required
to consider again when another appeal is brought after the district court renders its decision
on the remaining claims or as to the remaining parties.”9
The Fifth Circuit has also explained that “[w]hen some of the same facts form the
basis for several claims, the existence of separate claims for purposes of Rule 54(b)
depends on an analysis of their distinctness.”10
After weighing the appropriate factors, the Court finds that the certification is
inappropriate in this case. The Court concludes that the claims asserted against Sid
Gautreaux, III, in his official capacity as Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish, are not so
distinct from the remaining claims to warrant certification. The Court further concludes that
no injustice or hardship exists that would be alleviated by an immediate appeal and that no
injustice would result from a delay in the entry of final judgment. Consequently, the
possibility that an entry of judgment will produce piecemeal review in this case outweighs
the danger of denying justice by delay.11

8

Id. (citing H & W Indus., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA, 860 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir.
1988)(quoting Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8, 100 S.Ct. 1460, 1465
(1980))).
9

Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure
§2659 (3rd ed. 1998).
10
Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A. v. American Intern. Inv. Corp., Inc., 292 F.3d 471, 485 (5th
Cir. 2002).
11

The Court notes that Defendants, LNV Corporation and Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. were just
served on March 4, 2014, and have not yet filed Answers in this case.
Doc 1335

3

Accordingly, the Motion to Designate Rulings as Final and Appealable12 by
Defendant Sid Gautreaux, III, in his official capacity as Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish,
is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on April 14, 2014.

S
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

12

Doc 1335

Rec. Doc. No. 20.
4