CenturyTel of Chatham L L C et al v. Sprint Communications Company L P

Filing 236

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part 218 Motion for Entry of a Final Judgment. To the extent that the CenturyLink Plaintiffs move the Court for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b), the motion is GRANTED. The Courts January 24, 2011 Judgment (Doc. No. 37 ), May 4, 2016 Judgment(Doc. No. 214 ), and July 25, 2016 Judgment (Doc. No. 235 ) are deemed FINAL and immediately appealable. To the extent that the CenturyLink Plaintiffs moved, in the alternative, for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 07/25/2016.(crt,YocumSld, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
CENTURYTEL OF CHATHAM,
LLC, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-1951

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS
COMPANY LP

MAG. JUDGE MARK HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is the CenturyLink Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Final
Judgment [Doc. No. 218]. On January 24, 2011, the Court dismissed the CenturyLink Plaintiffs’
Count II with prejudice [Doc. No. 37]. On January 21, 2015, Defendant/Counterclaimant Sprint
Communications Co. LP’s (“Sprint”) Counts V, VI, VII, and VIII were separated from this
litigation by the United States Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation for pre-trial proceedings.
[Doc. No. 76]. On May 4, 2016, after trial and post-trial briefing, the Court issued a Judgment
[Doc. No. 214] on the remaining claims, finding in favor of the CenturyLink Plaintiffs and
against Sprint on the CenturyLink Plaintiffs’ Counts I, III, and IV and on Sprint’s Counts I, II, III,
and IV for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion [Doc. No. 213]. On July 25, 2016,
the Court issued a Judgment [Doc. No. 235], amending and supplementing the damages awarded
in the May 4, 2016 Judgment, for the reasons stated in the Court’s Ruling [Doc. No. 234]. Under
these facts and circumstances, the Court finds, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b),
there is no just reason for delay. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the CenturyLink Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Final Judgment
[Doc. No. 218] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent that the

CenturyLink Plaintiffs move the Court for entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b), the motion
is GRANTED. The Court’s January 24, 2011 Judgment [Doc. No. 37], May 4, 2016 Judgment
[Doc. No. 214], and July 25, 2016 Judgment [Doc. No. 235] are deemed FINAL and immediately
appealable. To the extent that the CenturyLink Plaintiffs moved, in the alternative, for an
interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 25th day of July, 2016.

2