BOULANGER et al v. ARROW MIDSTREAM HOLDINGS LLC et al

Filing 71

ORDER ON THE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISMISS RELEASED PARTIES PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54(b) re: 67 Motion to Dismiss By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (jgw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ANNICK ROY, as Special
Administrator of the Estate of JeanGuy Veilleux, et al.
Plaintiff,
v.

RAIL WORLD, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14-cv-00113-JDL
1:16-cv-00105-JDL
1:16-cv-00120-JDL
1:16-cv-00121-JDL
1:16-cv-00122-JDL
1:16-cv-00123-JDL
1:16-cv-00124-JDL
1:16-cv-00125-JDL
1:16-cv-00126-JDL
1:16-cv-00127-JDL
1:16-cv-00128-JDL
1:16-cv-00129-JDL
1:16-cv-00130-JDL
1:16-cv-00131-JDL
1:16-cv-00132-JDL
1:16-cv-00133-JDL
1:16-cv-00134-JDL
1:16-cv-00135-JDL
1:16-cv-00136-JDL
1:16-cv-00137-JDL

1:15-cv-00250-JDL
1:16-cv-00106-JDL
1:16-cv-00138-JDL
1:16-cv-00139-JDL
1:16-cv-00140-JDL
1:16-cv-00141-JDL
1:16-cv-00142-JDL
1:16-cv-00143-JDL
1:16-cv-00144-JDL
1:16-cv-00145-JDL
1:16-cv-00146-JDL
1:16-cv-00147-JDL
1:16-cv-00148-JDL
1:16-cv-00149-JDL
1:16-cv-00150-JDL
1:16-cv-00151-JDL
1:16-cv-00153-JDL
1:16-cv-00154-JDL
1:16-cv-00156-JDL

ORDER ON THE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS RELEASED
PARTIES PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54(b)
In July of 2013, a freight train operated by Montreal Maine & Atlantic
Railway, Ltd. (“MMA”), including its 72 carloads of crude oil, derailed in the town of
Lac-Mégantic, Québec, leading to a series of explosions that destroyed part of the
downtown area. 1:15-mc-00356-JDL, ECF No. 1 at 2-3. Forty-seven people died. Id.
at 3. The next month, MMA filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding in the District
of Maine, and, simultaneously, sought similar protection in Canada.

Id.

The

derailment also spawned civil proceedings in both Illinois and Texas state courts,
which were removed to the Northern District of Illinois and the Northern District of
Texas, respectively. Id. at 3-5.

Following the commencement of the chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding,
settlement negotiations were held between the Bankruptcy Trustee (the “Trustee”)1
and the defendants in the civil proceedings. See 1:14-cv-00113-JDL, ECF No. 258 at
3; ECF No. 285 at 3. As a result of the negotiations, all defendants except for
Canadian Pacific Railway Company (“Canadian Pacific”) entered into settlement
agreements in which they agreed to contribute to a settlement fund in exchange for
a full and final release of all claims related to the derailment. Id. The release of
claims is contained in Article 10.5 of the Trustee’s Revised First Amended Plan of
Liquidation Dated July 15, 2015 (as Amended on October 8, 2015) (the “Plan”). No.
13-10670 (Bankr. D. Me.), ECF No. 1822. All defendants except for Canadian Pacific
and its United States subsidiaries are “Released Parties” per the settlement
agreements and the Plan. 1:14-cv-00113-JDL, ECF No. 285 at 2-3.
On October 9, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the
Plan (the “Confirmation Order”) and the settlement agreements, finding that they
were “the product of extensive good-faith, arm’s-length negotiations[,]” and that they
were “fair, equitable and reasonable[.]” No. 13-10670 (Bankr. D. Me.), ECF No. 1801
at 14, ¶ 15.

The Confirmation Order also concluded that the release of claims

contained in Article 10 of the Plan constituted “a good-faith compromise and
settlement of the matters covered thereby.” Id. at 14, ¶ 16. The Effective Date of the
Plan occurred on December 22, 2015. 1:14-cv-00113-JDL, ECF No. 285 at 3. The

The Trustee is now the Estate Representative of the post-confirmation estate of MMA (the “Estate
Representative”). 1:14-cv-00113-JDL, ECF No. 285 at 2.
1

District Court adopted the Confirmation Order on the same day (the “Adopting
Order”). 1:15-mc-00329-JDL, ECF No. 16.
On February 22, 2016, I ordered the civil cases pending in the Northern
District of Illinois and the Northern District of Texas transferred to the District of
Maine pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(b)(5) (2015). 1:15-mc-00355-JDL, ECF No. 37;
1:15-mc-00356-JDL, ECF No. 44. Two cases were transferred from the Northern
District of Texas on February 23, 2016, and thirty-five cases were transferred from
the Northern District of Illinois on March 9, 2016.
Despite the Confirmation Order, the Adopting Order, and the occurrence of the
Plan’s Effective Date, the Released Parties remain as defendants in thirty-nine
wrongful death cases in the District of Maine.2
On March 17, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Dismiss Released Parties
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), in which they request that the
court “enter judgment dismissing the Released Parties . . . with prejudice and without
costs.” 1:14-cv-00113-JDL, ECF No. 285 at 4. See also 1:15-cv-00250-JDL, ECF No.
119 at 4. The plaintiffs state that the Released Parties “have paid the amounts
required of them to be paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreements[,]” and that
“there are no further conditions that must be performed or must occur prior to
dismissal of the Released Parties from these actions.” Id.

See 1:14-cv-00113-JDL; 1:15-cv-00250-JDL; 1:16-cv-00120-JDL; 1:16-cv-00121-JDL;
JDL; 1:16-cv-00123-JDL; 1:16-cv-00124-JDL; 1:16-cv-00125-JDL; 1:16-cv-00126-JDL;
JDL; 1:16-cv-00128-JDL; 1:16-cv-00129-JDL; 1:16-cv-00130-JDL; 1:16-cv-00131-JDL;
JDL; 1:16-cv-00133-JDL; 1:16-cv-00134-JDL; 1:16-cv-00135-JDL; 1:16-cv-00136-JDL;
JDL; 1:16-cv-00138-JDL; 1:16-cv-00139-JDL; 1:16-cv-00140-JDL; 1:16-cv-00141-JDL;
JDL; 1:16-cv-00143-JDL; 1:16-cv-00144-JDL; 1:16-cv-00145-JDL; 1:16-cv-00146-JDL;
JDL; 1:16-cv-00148-JDL; 1:16-cv-00149-JDL; 1:16-cv-00150-JDL; 1:16-cv-00151-JDL;
JDL; 1:16-cv-00154-JDL; 1:16-cv-00156-JDL; 1:16-cv-105-JDL; 1:16-cv-00106-JDL.

2

1:16-cv-001221:16-cv-001271:16-cv-001321:16-cv-001371:16-cv-001421:16-cv-001471:16-cv-00153-

LEGAL ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) permits a district court, in cases
involving multiple claims or parties, to direct entry of a final judgment “as to one or
more, but fewer than all, claims or parties” if the court “expressly determines that
there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
The First Circuit has established two steps for reviewing a Rule 54(b)
certification. The first step requires the court to determine whether the judgment in
question “has the requisite aspects of finality.” Niemic v. Galas, 286 Fed. App’x 738,
739 (1st Cir. 2008). Here, the requested entry of judgment would dismiss with
prejudice all claims against the Released Parties. ECF No. 285 at 4. This degree of
finality is sufficient. See Penn v. Knox Cty., 2013 WL 5839378, at * 1 (D. Me. Oct. 30,
2013).
The second step requires the court to determine that there is no just reason for
delay by assessing “(1) any interrelationship or overlap among the various legal and
factual issues involved in the dismissed and the pending claims, and (2) any equities
and efficiencies implicated by the requested piecemeal review.” Niemic, 286 Fed.
App’x at 739 (quoting Credit Francais Int’l, S.A. v. Bio-Vita, Ltd., 78 F.3d 698, 706
(1st Cir. 1996)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, there is significant factual and legal overlap among the wrongful death
claims against the Released Parties and Canadian Pacific, all of which arise from the
derailment and explosion in Lac Mégantic. Yet, by the plaintiffs’ own admission, the
Released Parties have paid all amounts required of them and there are no other
conditions to be performed pursuant to the settlement agreements. 1:14-cv-00113-

JDL, ECF No. 285 at 4. The fact that the Released Parties have performed their
obligations under the settlement agreements and that the plaintiffs are the parties
who seek dismissal significantly decreases the likelihood of “piecemeal appellate
review.” See Credit Francais Int’l, S.A., 78 F.3d at 706 (“the district court is to
consider the strong judicial policy disfavoring piecemeal appellate review”) (citation
and quotation omitted) (emphasis removed).
I also conclude that the requested entry of judgment would vastly improve the
administrative efficiency of the remaining cases because dismissing the Released
Parties would eliminate dozens of parties who have already consummated their
settlement with the plaintiffs. Furthermore, equitable considerations weigh in favor
of an entry of judgment because requiring the Released Parties to remain as
defendants in the case would subject them to potentially significant costs and
attorneys’ fees were they required to continue to appear for the duration of the
litigation.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that there is no just reason for delay of
an entry of judgment dismissing the Released Parties with prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), and furthermore, that such a judgment would
have the necessary aspects of finality. The plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Released
Parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is GRANTED.
The Clerk’s Office is instructed to enter judgment dismissing with prejudice
and without costs all defendants other than Canadian Pacific Railway Company in
the following cases:

1:14-cv-00113-JDL;

1:15-cv-00250-JDL;

1:16-cv-00120-JDL;

1:16-cv-00121-JDL;

1:16-cv-00122-JDL;

1:16-cv-00123-JDL;

1:16-cv-00124-JDL;

1:16-cv-00125-JDL;

1:16-cv-00126-JDL;

1:16-cv-00127-JDL;

1:16-cv-00128-JDL;

1:16-cv-00129-JDL;

1:16-cv-00130-JDL;

1:16-cv-00131-JDL;

1:16-cv-00132-JDL;

1:16-cv-00133-JDL;

1:16-cv-00134-JDL;

1:16-cv-00135-JDL;

1:16-cv-00136-JDL;

1:16-cv-00137-JDL;

1:16-cv-00138-JDL;

1:16-cv-00139-JDL;

1:16-cv-00140-JDL;

1:16-cv-00141-JDL;

1:16-cv-00142-JDL;

1:16-cv-00143-JDL;

1:16-cv-00144-JDL;

1:16-cv-00145-JDL;

1:16-cv-00146-JDL;

1:16-cv-00147-JDL;

1:16-cv-00148-JDL;

1:16-cv-00149-JDL;

1:16-cv-00150-JDL;

1:16-cv-00151-JDL;

1:16-cv-00153-JDL;

1:16-cv-00154-JDL;

1:16-cv-00156-JDL.
The Clerk’s Office is instructed, in case number 1:16-cv-00105-JDL and case
number 1:16-cv-00106-JDL, to enter judgment dismissing with prejudice and without
costs all defendants other than Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Canadian Pacific
Railway Limited; Soo Line Railroad Company d/b/a Canadian Pacific Railway;
Delaware and Hudson Railroad Company, Inc. d/b/a Canadian Pacific Railway; and
Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad Corporation d/b/a Canadian Pacific
Railway.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 6th day of April, 2016.
/s/ Jon D. Levy
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE