Williams v. United Parcel Service, Inc. et al

Filing 53

RULING denying 44 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; however, Plaintiff's claims against USP are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick on 12/20/2018. (SWE) Modified on 12/20/2018 to replace document per chambers (SWE).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ROCKETT WILLIAMS

CIVIL ACTION NO.

VERSUS

17-483-SDD-RLB

UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INC.
SOUTHERN TIRE MART, LLC, AND
BRIDGESTONE BANDAG, LLC.

RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Judgment1
filed by Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”). On July 9, 2018, the Court granted
the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by UPS on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to
file an Opposition as required by the Local Rules of Court and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and because the Court found the motion had merit.2

For the following

reasons, the Court does not find that 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
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
1
2

Rec. Doc. No. 44.
Rec. Doc. No. 40.

Document Number: 49423 
Page 1 of 4 

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 July 9, 2018, dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims asserted in
this matter against the moving Defendant UPS, 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 UPS, and the Court agrees with UPS’s
assertion that the dismissal should be converted to a dismissal WITH PREJUDICE. 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
consider is whether the appellate court “‘would have to decide the same issues more than

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)).

Document Number: 49423 
Page 2 of 4 

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 UPS 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.

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).

Document Number: 49423 
Page 3 of 4 

Accordingly, the Motion for Entry of Rule 54(b) Judgment11 filed by Defendant
Tuthill Corporation is DENIED. However, Plaintiff’s claims against UPS are dismissed
WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 20th day of December, 2018.

S

________________________________
SHELLY D. DICK
CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

11

Rec. Doc. No. 44.

Document Number: 49423 
Page 4 of 4