Vollmar v. O.C. Seacrets, Inc. et al

Filing 28

RULE 54(b) DETERMINATION. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 10/24/11. (bmh, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
DANIELLE VOLLMAR

*

Plaintiff

*

vs.

*

O.C. SEACRETS, INC., et al.
Defendants
*

*

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-11-772

*
*
*

*

*

*

*

RULE 54(b) DETERMINATION
The Court has conferred with counsel this date and has been
informed that the parties agree that there should be a final Judgment
entered regarding Plaintiff's claims against Defendants O.C.
Seacrets, Inc. and O.C. Seacrets, LLC.
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in
pertinent part:
When . . . multiple parties are involved,
the court may direct the entry of a final
judgment as to one or more but fewer than all
of the claims or parties only upon an express
determination that there is no just reason for
delay and upon an express direction for the
entry of judgment.
A Rule 54(b) certification should be the exception, not the
rule, for it is important to prevent piecemeal appeals of a case.
As stated by then Judge (now Justice) Kennedy in Morrison-Knudsen
Co., Inc. v. Archer:
Judgments under Rule 54(b) must be reserved for
the unusual case in which the costs and risks

of multiplying the number of proceedings and of
overcrowding the appellate docket are
outbalanced by pressing needs of the litigants
for an early and separate judgment as to some
claims or parties.
655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981).
In Braswell Shipyards, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., the Fourth
Circuit held that to make a proper Rule 54(b) certification, a
district court must:
1. [D]etermine whether the judgment is
"final" . . . in the sense that it is "an
ultimate disposition of an individual
claim entered in the course of a multiple
claims action[,]" [and] . . .
2. [D]etermine whether there is no just
reason for the delay in the entry of
judgment.

2 F.3d 1331, 1335 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Curtis-Wright Corp. v.
General Electric Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1980) (internal citations
omitted)).
The Fourth Circuit said that in making this case-specific
determination, which was tilted against piecemeal appeals, the
district court should consider the following factors if applicable:
(1) [T]he relationship between the adjudicated and
unadjudicated claims;
(2) [T]he possibility that the need for review might or
might not be mooted by future developments in the district
court;
(3) [T]he possibility that the reviewing court might be
obliged to consider the same issue a second time;

(4) [T]he presence or absence of a claim or counterclaim
which could result in a set-off against the judgment sought
to be made final;
(5) [M]iscellaneous factors such as delay, economic and
solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial,
frivolity of competing claims, expense, and the like.
Braswell Shipyards, 2 F.3d at 1335-36 (citations omitted).
In light of the foregoing factors, and all other applicable
facts and circumstances, the requisite two-step determination is
made in the instant case.

First, the contemplated judgment would

most certainly be "final" in the Rule 54(b) sense since it reflects
the resolution of all issues relating to Defendants O.C. Seacrets,
Inc. and O.C. Seacrets, LLC.

Second, the unadjudicated claims are

against Defendant Shepard and independent of the adjudicated claims.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court determines that, pursuant
to Rule 54(b):
1. A final judgment can be entered resolving Plaintiff's
claims against Defendants O.C. Seacrets, Inc. and
O.C. Seacrets, LLC;
2. There is no just reason for delay in the entry of such
a judgment; and
3. Judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) shall be entered by
separate Order.

SO ORDERED, on Monday, October 24, 2011.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge