Adams et al v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

Filing 100

ORDER AMENDING ORDER DATED APRIL 19, 2013. In accordance with the parties' Stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Court hereby amends its April 19, 2013 Order 89 in this case as follows: a. In accordance with Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court hereby directs the entry of FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants, and each of them, and against Plaintiff Marc Mancini, only; b. No just reason for further delay of Plaintiffs appeal exists. 2. In all other r espects, the Court's April 19, 2013 Order is unchanged. 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants, and each of them, and against Plaintiff Marc Mancini, only, in accordance with the foregoing. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 4/20/17. Associated Cases: 0:07-md-01836-MJD-FLN, 0:10-cv-05009-MJD-FLN(GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
IN RE: MIRAPEX PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL File No. 07-1836 (MJD/FLN)

This document relates to:
CAROL ADAMS, et al., (Plaintiff Marc
Mancini)
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 10-cv-5009 (MJD/FLN)

ORDER AMENDING ORDER
DATED APRIL 19, 2013

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

This cause is before the Court upon the Stipulation filed by Plaintiff Marc
Mancini and all Defendants [Docket No. 99], by which the parties agree that the
Court may amend its prior summary judgment order of April 19, 2013 [Docket
No. 89] in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Marc Mancini to allow
Mancini to immediately appeal that ruling to the Eighth Circuit, as provided by
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . or when
multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final

judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties
only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for
delay.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Before certifying that there is no just reason for delay under Rule
54(b), the district court must consider both the equities of the
situation and judicial administrative interests, particularly the
interest in preventing piecemeal appeals.
Clos v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 597 F.3d 925, 928 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
“[T]he district court must undertake a two-step analysis when deciding
whether to certify an order under Rule 54(b).” Downing v. Riceland Foods, Inc.,
810 F.3d 580, 585 (8th Cir. 2016). First, the Court “must first determine that it is
dealing with a final judgment . . . in the sense that it is an ultimate disposition of
an individual claim.” Id. (citation omitted). In this case, the Court is clearly
dealing with a final judgment: the Court’s April 19, 2013 Order disposes of all
claims brought by Plaintiff Marc Mancini against Defendants. Mancini’s claims
are not intertwined with the only remaining claims in the lawsuit, those of
Plaintiff Judy Armstrong.
Second, the district court must determine whether a just reason for
delay exists. In making such determination, the district court must
consider both the equities of the situation and judicial administrative
interests, particularly the interest in preventing piecemeal appeals.
2

It is a long-standing rule of the Eighth Circuit that [c]ertification
should be granted only if there exists some danger of hardship or
injustice through delay which would be alleviated by immediate
appeal.
Id. (citations omitted). The appellate court has
identified several factors that should be considered in determining
whether danger or hardship through delay exists:
(1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated
claims; (2) the possibility that the need for review might or might
not be mooted by future developments in the district court; (3) the
possibility that the reviewing court might be obliged to consider the
same issue a second time; (4) the presence or absence of a claim or
counterclaim which could result in setoff against the judgment
sought to be made final; (5) miscellaneous factors such as delay,
economic and solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial,
frivolity of competing claims, expense, and the like.
Id. at 585–86 (citation omitted).
In this case, the Court concludes that there exists a danger of hardship or
injustice through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal. Here,
the adjudicated claims, brought by Mancini, are not intertwined with the
unadjudicated claims, brought by Armstrong. The need for review will not be
mooted by any possible future developments in this Court. There is little
possibility that the appellate court will be obliged to consider the same issue a
second time. Not only are Mancini and Armstrong’s cases distinct and not
3

intertwined, but also, according to the parties, Armstrong’s claims are highly
likely to be settled and dismissed. There is no remaining claim or counterclaim
that could result in a setoff. Additionally, at this point, Mancini and Defendants
have waited four years for review of the dismissal of Mancini’s case and there is
no indication of how much longer they may have to wait until the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services resolve the liens that are affecting the
disposition of Armstrong’s case. This inordinate delay is not just as to the parties
involved.
Overall, the Court concludes that there is no just reason for delay and
directs entry of final judgment as to Mancini’s claims.
In accordance with the parties’ Stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Court hereby amends its April 19, 2013 Order [Docket No. 89] in
this case as follows:
a. In accordance with Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court hereby directs the entry of FINAL
JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants, and each of them, and
against Plaintiff Marc Mancini, only;
b. No just reason for further delay of Plaintiff’s appeal exists.
2. In all other respects, the Court’s April 19, 2013 Order is unchanged.

4

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter FINAL JUDGMENT in favor
of Defendants, and each of them, and against Plaintiff Marc Mancini,
only, in accordance with the foregoing.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: April 20, 2017

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court

5